Yes, yes I did, the degradation of the middle and lower class in america is a BIGGER issue then racial structure of ameria, lask I check the majority of every race, no every american, heck everyone in the world, fall under thoses classes. Trump focused on them, he presented no solutions of substance mind you, but he focused on them, and he won. Yeah and in general they don't treat wealthy and middle class black people with brutality either, it is a matter of degrees. None the less arguing about that will get us nowhere in elections. It does not put good food in peoples mouths, roofs over their heads, does not pay their bills or their debt, and that is the TOP priority of most voters, not police brutality, trumps victory is proof of that.
Well not just you, but your ilk, call them what ever you want, and it cost the votes of whites and independents, for hillary. Those like you that go around proclaiming racism is the top priority, did not grab the attention of underclass whites who were too busy worrying about getting a good job and paying bills, heck it even lost us some hispanics and blacks, for Trump actually made gains in hispanic and black votes over romney!
I already did - products of your imagination. You have no idea who is in my "ilk", or how they behave. 1) You probably can't talk about the one without talking about the other - certainly not if you try to talk about solutions 2) Trump almost never talked about that, the big issue. He talked about various narrowly defined grievances, not the overall issue, and he brought in race continually when doing so. Yes, they do. Black people have been very clear about that. Police brutality is race related, in the US. It's a racial issue. White people don't suffer from it in general (except political lefties), other people do. It strongly affects the food in black people's mouths, roofs over their heads, paying their bills, etc. Are you planning to not talk to black people, in the next election? Nobody like me does that. Anyone who does that is not like me. Racism is not a separate priority at all, for people like me, but an inherent aspect of almost every political issue in the US - especially the solutions to problems, which have been blocked by racial bigotry at every turn. Almost none of those people were paying the slightest attention to me or anybody like me. If they had been, they would have heard a lot about jobs and bills and trade and tax policy and so forth, and almost nothing about racism except as it came up in the jobs, bills, trade, etc. Shoot - the black people in the SE Dem primaries didn't even know who Bernie Sanders was, let alone what people like me were saying about anything.
Yeah sure, what ever. I'll beleive you're in denial and you can beleive it is my imagination and we can leave it at that? 1) Sure I can: "Outsourcing and automation have destroyed the employment oppertunities of the working classes, leaving them in an increasing spiral towards poverty" 2) Ok for example Trump blamed the working clases's employment woes (not a narrrow issue) on NAFTA and other free trade deals... not hearing race in there. So that explains how Trump gained 2% in the black vote over Romney how? How about you talk with Lil Wayne about racism by the way. Twice a many white people were killed by police then blacks here in the USA. Sure per racial population blacks are more likely to be shot, but there could be many causes for that other then simply racism. More importantly the 1-2 thousand people killed by police is nothing compared the 40 thousands commiting sucide in the USA, many of them because they could not get a job, their lives sucks, etc, or the >50 million americans living below the poverty level. Which is the bigger issues? The voters just told you which is the bigger issue. Trump talked to ALL people of the working class, including blacks, he won. Yeah lots and lots of other people conflate racism with almost every other political issue, I met them online and IRL, and they are annoying and they are one of the reasons we lost. Do you ever take even a moment to look at right wing media? They spend alot of time pointing at people like you and saying "this is what is wrong with america" and they won.
As long as you quit saying things about my "ilk" and behavior that are obviously false, sure. 1) Blaming NAFTA and free trade deals without the overall context brings the issue to a narrow grievance, and mere blame for bad is not a discussion or handling of the overall issue anyway. 2) Your paraphrase summary contains no direct racial stuff - I think it's possible to paraphrase and summarize Trump in such a way that any racial aspect of what he said is left out, sure. Ok, Trump can say false things and make deceptive statements and spout single sentences of bullshit about certain confined aspects of the matter without overtly mentioning race in every single sentence. But I was for some reason - I should have known better - talking about actual discussion of the larger issue. That's because I took you too seriously, when you made a big deal out of considering the larger and more inclusive issue, and claimed that's what Trump was doing. Trump never talked to "blacks", working class or any other, and he lost the black vote by a wide margin. It doesn't. So? Every major political problem in the US has a significant racial aspect that impedes all attempts to solve it. That is not the same thing as "conflating" the racial aspect with the problem. People like me don't take the part for the whole. No, they don't. They don't point at me or anybody like me, they make up lies and slanders and point at the fictions they have created. Or they point at somebody not like me, doing things I don't and wouldn't do. They do this to justify their own actions, which would otherwise incur blame. Which you then blame me and my "ilk" for, apparently because you accept their entire framing of the situation. Penny drop yet?
I'm certain he will. I don't believe he's the maniac they cast on his image. Woman, blacks and homosexuals will still have their rights as they always have. I'm hoping he pulls the federal structure off the the states, so they can determine their own laws. I do think you have reason to be concerned about the future of the Supreme Court. I'm not certain what he has in mind, but I'm hoping that it becomes a 50/50 split with a swing vote in the middle. Yet I'm not certain it won't go totally conservative.
Are you referring to the rights us White, Male Americans gave them? In 1870, 1920 and 2016? Those rights? How very magnanimous of you. Us. Them. Something...
Really? If not the image "they cast," how about the image he himself cast? Trump confessed (boasted, rather) to sexually assaulting women. Next, multiple women step forward to confirm that, yes, Trump is, in fact, a serial sexual assailant/predator. His denials--you know, 'cuz they were too ugly for him to have raped--are fucking bullshit. You don't get say you do something, have several witnesses/victims confirm this, and then walk back on it. I mean, Bill Cosby never actually admitted to rape, but pretty much everyone concurs that he's a rapist. (Oh, right--Cosby's a nigger. What was I thinking?) So you don't believe the rapist you voted for and support is the "maniac" he's depicted as? Interesting. Seriously though, and since you're all for an end to this PC nonsense, I honestly am not all that interested in your opinion, as you've demonstrated time and again that you're not only a complete fucking idiot, but also consistently dishonest--rather, you are a pathological liar--and a despicable, loathsome person. Honestly t, I would prefer that you simply take one of your guns, prop it under your chin (in your mouth is fine, but under the chin is historically more effective), and do the world a genuine service.
I love how this works both ways - do you suppose those total fuckheads that voted for Trumph counted on this part?
Well, I 'spect we can 'splain to them... Did you happen to read "The Cross and the Switchblade"? Love 'em with a lead pipe...
They think liberals (read non narcissistic human beings) have no teeth. That may not be the wisest counsel - I think maybe the teeth stay hidden - like any wolf's - till prey or enemy shows. But hey, that's just me....
Interesting that all that trash landed at his feet while running against Hillary. No, I don't believe he's as bad as all others wish him to be. Yes, I like him more now then ever before. Previously I considered him the second worst choice, but it feels more like a winning proposition to an ever pressing danger that is the left. Even classic Liberals see the threat on the horizon. I think your below statements clearly illustrate their concern. Yet you took the time to respond to my opinion. It's obvious you care. As of now, I own no guns, but I take pleasure in knowing that my right to own one still exists.
But, but, but... It can't, cause Obama came for yer guns, right? Didn't he get yer's? Oh wait... That didn't happen.
Whatever, Randwolf. I'm not a gun freak, but I do believe I have a right to own one should I choose. I do believe the left is a danger to the Second Amendment. I know that Trump will fight for my right to own a gun, whereas Hillary was a big question mark. Many others felt the same.
Fun fact: a significant majority of Americans are for Obamacare if you describe what it does without naming it. If you actually tell them you're talking about Obamacare, a significant majority are against it. If you instead call it the Affordable Care Act, support is somewhere between the two previous cases. (I'm not sure whether a majority are for or against "The Affordable Care Act") I think this explanation oversimplifies things a bit. The cluster**** that people refer to when they complain about "the electoral college" is actually the result of three, largely separate phenomena. At its heart, the electoral college is the idea that each state gets some number of electoral votes, proportional to its representation in congress, which decide the presidential election. Basically, the founding fathers didn't think John Q. Public could be expected to know enough about what was going on in other states to make an informed decision in a country-wide election. Instead, broad regions of population (again, apportioned by congressional representation) would each elect their best and brightest as Electors, who would then all gather in Washington to choose a president. The electoral college, then, was not set up as an alternative to direct popular election, but as an alternative to citizens voting for a president at all. This notion was well-intentioned but hilariously misguided in retrospect. A second odd aspect of the electoral college is that smaller states get disproportionately many electoral votes for their populations. As far as I know, this is largely a side effect of a related but different debate. When congressional representation was first being set up, the bigger states felt that they should get the lion's share of congressmen because they represented the most people, while the smaller states were afraid that their voices would get buried under their stronger counterparts'. The resulting compromise was our bicameral system, in which the Senate represents all states equally (two senators each) while the House of Representatives has representation roughly proportional to population. Since each congress member gives one electoral vote, this also boosts small states' influence in the presidential election. In principle, this means that by winning many small states and no large ones, a person could win a presidential election while being massively behind on the popular vote, but as far as I know this has never happened. (All electoral/popular mismatches I know of are more due to point 3, below.) The third oddity of the electoral college is the "winner takes all" system, where most states give 100% of their electoral votes to the candidate that won in that state (as opposed to dividing up electoral votes based on how the in-state popular vote was decided). Based on what I've read, states do this because it gives them more sway in the final decision. For example, Iowa is usually fairly purple, so a typical candidate could only gain or lose one electoral vote by campaigning in a electorally-proportionate Iowa. But because Iowa has a winner takes all system, 49% vs 51% support in Iowa is a difference of six electoral votes, and both candidates always spend a ton of time campaigning in Iowa and trying to win over those last few undecideds. (Iowa is not unique in this regard; it's just a good example.) The winner takes all system is not mandated anywhere in the constitution, and it's kind of stupid.
What you said here makes no sense to me, I can only conclude that race is the larger issue to you and you refuse to see it is not. Ok when most Americans have no savings, have huge amounts of debt, have shit jobs that they work long hours on just to have enough money to get through another day, most of these Americans are white by the way, how the fuck is race the bigger issue? Both solar wing and gravity effect the motion of the planets, but which effects their motion more? He actually did, and made speeches to the extent of "look you have had democrat rule over your cities for decades, what has it brought you, I can do better, it will be great" and Trump actually gained 2% more of the black vote than Romney. SO clearly it had some affect. And that is bullshit. The vast numbers of whites so desperate for better living that they were willing to vote trump is proof of that. What is impeding $15 per hour minimum wage is not racism, what is impeding universal healthcare is not racism, what is impeding basic income guarantee is not racism. and yet they do, do you want me to start droping right wing articles on the regressive left? It is people like you that moved the lefts discussion from progressive taxation, student loan pay offs, increase wages, etc, to trans bathrooms, BLM, how white people can be better allies and check their privilege, etc... most people give no fucks about the latter issues because they are too busy trying to make enough money and pay off loans, do you understand Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
You can't have both of those. If he lets the States re-impose their oppressions, women and blacks and homosexuals will lose their civil rights. That would be wrong, as already noted. So maybe you should postpone drawing conclusions until the posts make sense to you. Those vast numbers of whites are almost universally deeply racist - have you noticed that? You can tell by what they say and do, and who they vote for now and in the past. Look at their Congressmen and State legislatures, over the years. And they also oppose the minimum wage hike, universal healthcare, basic income guarantees, etc. All that stuff. And if you ask them why, they will tell you things that amount to (if you listen to them) objecting to the prospect of paying for healthcare and wages delivered to black people. It's not the only reason, but it's an important and crucial one, one that is always present, one that has made a large and critical difference over the years. It's an aspect of each of those problems. There is a long history here, especially well documented in health care: government paid medical care for poor people was originally rejected, back in the mid 1900s, in large part because it would have required integrated hospitals in the South and large expenditures for expanded and duplicate facilities for black people all over the US. That kind of consideration has been a major obstacle to all those things you mentioned, and still is, and that partly drove the Trump vote this week as well. You can't find a single post from me anywhere on this forum to support that kind of stupid, goofy, wingnut presumption. I keep reminding you that this identity you have invented for me is dumb and unsupported - about now let me note that it is also slander and bullshit and lies. Why are you insisting on inventing this insulting shit for me I have never posted or argued in my life? - is it because you cannot actually respond to posts and arguments as they appear, and need a little playground world of Fox News kiddy ideas because that is all you can handle?
I don't believe the states will dust off the Jim Crow Laws in response. What I do think will happen is people and communities will be allowed to determine their own laws without interference from the feds. What might be acceptable in California might not be cool in West Virginia. When a local government steps on a person's constitutional rights, then yes, the Feds should play a role.
They will come up with new laws, to the same purpose. So make up your mind. You can't have it both ways: if the Feds don't curb them, many local governments will re-instate the laws and procedures oppressing women, blacks, browns, gays, and so forth. You saw that in the last election - where the Voting Rights Act was lifted, and control returned to States that had oppressed black communities, so was the oppression (recall the long lines because of reduced and malfunctioning voting machines).
