Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
AUTO INDUSTRY
GM will lay off 2,000 at Ohio, Michigan plants
Shifting demand from cars to trucks and SUVs is forcing General Motors to lay off more than 2,000 workers indefinitely at two assembly plants in Ohio and Michigan starting in January, the company said Wednesday.
GM said it will suspend the third shifts at factories in Lordstown, Ohio, and Lansing, Mich., because of the market change, which is growing and shows no sign of abating.
About 1,250 workers will be furloughed at the Lordstown plant, which makes the Chevrolet Cruze compact car, starting Jan. 23. Another 840 will be idled at the Lansing Grand River factory, which makes the Chevrolet Camaro and Cadillac ATS and CTS luxury cars, when their shifts end Jan. 16.
“It’s supply and demand, and right now the demand is not there for what we have,” said Glenn Johnson, president of a United Auto Workers union local at the Lordstown plant.
Sales of the Cruze are down nearly 20 percent this year. ATS and CTS sales are down about 17 percent each, while Camaro sales are off nine percent.
GM doesn’t know when the workers will be called back, said spokesman Tom Wickham. Laid-off workers will get state unemployment benefits and supplemental pay.
CptJake wrote: His stance on trade definitely had an effect in the rust belt.
Indeed.
The historian in me now wonders if we're looking at a significant shift in voting behaviors.
Trump Turned the entire Rust Belt red, where as in your posted infographics (gj on that very timely) we can see those same states all went Blue in 2008. So, will the Rust Belt stay Red? Or will someone more inspiring that HRC manage to flip it blue in 2020? Will people be dissatisfied with their vote/non-vote(?) by then and vote differently?
Before yesterday I expected 2008 to go down as one of the most significant elections since Reagan won in 1980, but now I'm forced to wonder if 2016 might go down as more significant? Not just in how people vote but how they run. Trump won spending a comparatively tiny sum. He relied on media reporting to do his advertising for him. All he had to do was speak and he got air time. He spent little work on his ground game, which his going to challenge in the future the campaign tactics that have been historically used in Presidential runs.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well it looks like nobody I voted for won. Whatever bs about "it's not about RvD it's establishment v anti-establishment" doesn't even apply here, as we didn't elect an anti-establishment D to the house, but a fething oil and gas lobbyist R. The joys of living in a gerrymandered district i guess.
I'm pleased to announce that the pro-plant campaign was successful in MULTIPLE states. heh heh heh
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
CptJake wrote: His stance on trade definitely had an effect in the rust belt.
Indeed.
The historian in me now wonders if we're looking at a significant shift in voting behaviors.
Trump Turned the entire Rust Belt red, where as in your posted infographics (gj on that very timely) we can see those same states all went Blue in 2008. So, will the Rust Belt stay Red? Or will someone more inspiring that HRC manage to flip it blue in 2020? Will people be dissatisfied with their vote/non-vote(?) by then and vote differently?
Before yesterday I expected 2008 to go down as one of the most significant elections since Reagan won in 1980, but now I'm forced to wonder if 2016 might go down as more significant? Not just in how people vote but how they run. Trump won spending a comparatively tiny sum. He relied on media reporting to do his advertising for him. All he had to do was speak and he got air time. He spent little work on his ground game, which his going to challenge in the future the campaign tactics that have been historically used in Presidential runs.
Michigan has been blue since 1992. Turning it red was a huge feat.
thekingofkings wrote: I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant "The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall," and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility. There is a lot of rancor between right and left, and magnanimity in what is a complete victory could help heal these wounds.
Sure, that will happen, because Trump is the embodiment of grace and humility.
It's a nice thought, but those standards are way to high for the GOP to reach.
I really like how your response to "I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant... and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility" is... to belittle the President Elect and the GOP as a whole.
Self-reflection... not so much on your priorities, eh?
thekingofkings wrote: I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant "The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall," and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility. There is a lot of rancor between right and left, and magnanimity in what is a complete victory could help heal these wounds.
Sure, that will happen, because Trump is the embodiment of grace and humility.
It's a nice thought, but those standards are way to high for the GOP to reach.
I really like how your response to "I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant... and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility" is... to belittle the President Elect and the GOP as a whole.
Self-reflection... not so much on your priorities, eh?
It's not belittling if it's the truth. After all his insane twitter wars and mocking everyone, do you really believe he's capable of bringing this country together and healing the divide? If you believe that, you might want to take some time for some reflection. I don't need any self reflection on this, I just call it as I see it.
Alpharius wrote: While at times it might seem that it is impossible to separate Church (Religion) from State (Politics) in the USA, we can at least do this in the "US Politics" thread.
Please feel free to start a separate thread on the subject that appears to be showing up in this thread...a lot.
Last warning - from here on in, we're in warnings 'n' suspensions territory.
It's not belittling if it's the truth. After all his insane twitter wars and mocking everyone, do you really believe he's capable of bringing this country together and healing the divide? If you believe that, you might want to take some time for some reflection. I don't need any self reflection on this, I just call it as I see it.
As Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, put it this morning: “No, we don’t owe this monster an open mind… Trump deserves revulsion and relentless protest. After a year of calling this man a fascist and a unique evil, they tell us to unite and give him a chance… No one is interested in unifying with this garbage; we have to confront this racism and sexism in the streets and organize like we never have before.”
But yeah, he is the intolerant one.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
It's not belittling if it's the truth. After all his insane twitter wars and mocking everyone, do you really believe he's capable of bringing this country together and healing the divide? If you believe that, you might want to take some time for some reflection. I don't need any self reflection on this, I just call it as I see it.
As Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, put it this morning: “No, we don’t owe this monster an open mind… Trump deserves revulsion and relentless protest. After a year of calling this man a fascist and a unique evil, they tell us to unite and give him a chance… No one is interested in unifying with this garbage; we have to confront this racism and sexism in the streets and organize like we never have before.”
But yeah, he is the intolerant one.
I'm sorry, what? You're calling them intolerant because they say they won't just accept a racist with open arms?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
It's not belittling if it's the truth. After all his insane twitter wars and mocking everyone, do you really believe he's capable of bringing this country together and healing the divide? If you believe that, you might want to take some time for some reflection. I don't need any self reflection on this, I just call it as I see it.
As Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, put it this morning: “No, we don’t owe this monster an open mind… Trump deserves revulsion and relentless protest. After a year of calling this man a fascist and a unique evil, they tell us to unite and give him a chance… No one is interested in unifying with this garbage; we have to confront this racism and sexism in the streets and organize like we never have before.”
But yeah, he is the intolerant one.
What, pray tell, do you think Trump's concession speech would have been like in comparison to Clinton's today?
It's not belittling if it's the truth. After all his insane twitter wars and mocking everyone, do you really believe he's capable of bringing this country together and healing the divide? If you believe that, you might want to take some time for some reflection. I don't need any self reflection on this, I just call it as I see it.
As Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, put it this morning: “No, we don’t owe this monster an open mind… Trump deserves revulsion and relentless protest. After a year of calling this man a fascist and a unique evil, they tell us to unite and give him a chance… No one is interested in unifying with this garbage; we have to confront this racism and sexism in the streets and organize like we never have before.”
But yeah, he is the intolerant one.
I'm sorry, what? You're calling them intolerant because they say they won't just accept a racist with open arms?
accusing him of being a racist doesn't make him one. without an open mind we go nowhere
It's not belittling if it's the truth. After all his insane twitter wars and mocking everyone, do you really believe he's capable of bringing this country together and healing the divide? If you believe that, you might want to take some time for some reflection. I don't need any self reflection on this, I just call it as I see it.
As Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, put it this morning: “No, we don’t owe this monster an open mind… Trump deserves revulsion and relentless protest. After a year of calling this man a fascist and a unique evil, they tell us to unite and give him a chance… No one is interested in unifying with this garbage; we have to confront this racism and sexism in the streets and organize like we never have before.”
But yeah, he is the intolerant one.
Yes he is, Glad to see you agreeing.
his first step to healing the divide, well if you can believe anything he says, will be to try and imprison clinton, then sueing those he sexually assaulted because they came forward, because that's just the great healer that he is. You should know respect is earned, not given, let's see him earn some.
Gordon Shumway wrote: ...
i appreciate your response and honesty in regard to this debate. I will leave it up to the forum members to agree or disagree, but I will say this as a reminder: your rights end at the point where and when they infringe upon others' in the public sphere. We are all equal under the law. As to your right to discriminate, no, you do not have that under the law. Check your constitution, not you holy book.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but I'm afraid you suffer from a rather significant misapprehension regarding the nature of one's rights.
First, you say "As to your right to discriminate, no, you do not have that under the law. Check your constitution, not you holy book." I'm sorry, but your problem here is that the Freedom of Association (which necessarily includes the right to NOT associate) is an Constitutional right, implicated by exercise of the rights attendant in the First Amendment;
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That the right of association includes the right to exclude others has been the subject of a number of Supreme Court cases, most on point (I would argue) is BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND MONMOUTH COUNCIL, ET AL. v. JAMES DALE, which established the right of an association (Boy Scouts of America) to exclude homosexuals from serving as a scoutmaster;
Spoiler:
First, associations do not have to associate for the "purpose" of disseminating a certain message in order to be entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. An association must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired in order to be entitled to protection. For example, the purpose of the St. Patrick's Day parade in Hurley was not to espouse any views about sexual orientation, but we held that the parade organizers had a right to exclude certain participants nonetheless.
Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues -- a fact that the Boy Scouts disputes with contrary evidence -- the First Amendment protects the Boy Scouts' method of expression. If the Boy Scouts wishes Scout leaders to avoid questions of sexuality and teach only by example, this fact does not negate the sincerity of its belief discussed above.
Third, the First Amendment simply does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group's policy to be "expressive association." The presence of an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist in an assistant scoutmaster's uniform sends a distinctly different message from the presence of a heterosexual assistant scoutmaster who is on record as disagreeing with Boy Scouts policy. The Boy Scouts has a First Amendment right to choose to send one message but not the other. The fact that the organization does not trumpet its views from the housetops, or that it tolerates dissent within its ranks, does not mean that its views receive no First Amendment protection.
...
State public accommodations laws were originally enacted to prevent discrimination in traditional places of public accommodation -- like inns and trains....In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court went a step further and applied its public accommodations law to a private entity without even attempting to tie the term "place" to a physical location. As the definition of "public accommodation" has expanded from clearly commercial entities, such as restaurants, bars, and hotels, to membership organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the potential for conflict between state public accommodations laws and the First Amendment rights of organizations has increased.
Let me be clear, while the right of association (and the contingent right of exclusion) is well recognized, the encroachment of 'public accommodations laws' have eroded the rights of the individual at all levels. Thus, given today's jurisprudence, would the members of a shul qualify as an expressive association?
There are some circumstances where one might see that argument succeeding, and some where it would be likely to fail. Thus my point must be understood to establish the moral underpinnings of a right (Free Association) that has been under siege to for much of the 20th century (among many other rights, of course).
Further, you say "your rights end at the point where and when they infringe upon others' in the public sphere". Here the problem lies in the rather fuzzy use of 'rights' that we often encounter in the public discourse.
What rights, exactly, are being "infringed"? As I note above you have a right of association, a right of free expression, a right to bear arms, to Jury trial, to free movement, Contract, etc, etc. It would certainly be a violation of someone's rights if the state passed, for example, a law that forbade selling firearms to homosexuals (2A, in this case). It would similarly be a violation to pass a law that prohibited the selling of firearms to White Supremacists (here we might add 1A Free Speech/Expression considerations).
Does the fact that the State may not prohibit such selling mean that you have no right to refuse to sell a firearm to a White Supremacist? Such an interpretation seems ludicrous on its face, yet you seem to be making exactly that argument if we substitute homosexual for White Supremacist.
Again, let me be clear that the encroachment of 'Public Accommodation' laws means that current jurisprudence might give credence to such a view (although the pending Supreme Court appointment may rather radically change this): my point is that this is reflective of a degradation of liberty, of the creeping intrusion of the State.
Ultimately, of course, this discussion goes to such lofty questions as 'what are rights? Where do they come from? Can the government create rights? can it take rights away?' But such talk is rather beyond the nature of this discussion.
Alpharius wrote: While at times it might seem that it is impossible to separate Church (Religion) from State (Politics) in the USA, we can at least do this in the "US Politics" thread.
Please feel free to start a separate thread on the subject that appears to be showing up in this thread...a lot.
Last warning - from here on in, we're in warnings 'n' suspensions territory.
I'm not sure if my post is under this, but I'll desist in such freewheeling asides.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 00:28:34
It's not belittling if it's the truth. After all his insane twitter wars and mocking everyone, do you really believe he's capable of bringing this country together and healing the divide? If you believe that, you might want to take some time for some reflection. I don't need any self reflection on this, I just call it as I see it.
As Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, put it this morning: “No, we don’t owe this monster an open mind… Trump deserves revulsion and relentless protest. After a year of calling this man a fascist and a unique evil, they tell us to unite and give him a chance… No one is interested in unifying with this garbage; we have to confront this racism and sexism in the streets and organize like we never have before.”
But yeah, he is the intolerant one.
I'm sorry, what? You're calling them intolerant because they say they won't just accept a racist with open arms?
accusing him of being a racist doesn't make him one. without an open mind we go nowhere
"Judge Curiel cannot give me a fair trial because he is, we believe, Mexican." - the Presiden-Elect of the United States.
accusing him of being a racist doesn't make him one.
You're right. His own words make him a racist.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
See all the protests in Austin, various places in California, and others today?
Did all those evil right wing racists have mass protests when Obama won?
Perhaps folks like Clinton and Obama have pushed this idea of the Evil Right Wing Boogey Man so hard that many of the folks like the lady I quoted see racism and hate even when they can't back it up with facts? They pushed racism SO fething hard that now it is impossible for those who accepted their vision to not see it.
Again, Trump got a larger percent of black and hispanic voters than Romney did. Perhaps there was a bit more to his message than what some of you are attributing to it?
I know the majority of folks who post in this topic are going to disagree with that, it is too easy to read a few pages in the topic to see that is the case. But the inner cities under Obama got worse, not better. Trump spoke directly to trying to fix them, and in a way that the party which has controlled the inner cities for decades has not done. Again, over 200 counties that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 went to Trump. That did not happen because he preached hate and intolerance.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Stevefamine wrote: A lot of hate ITT for our new President of the United States
Lets see what he can do January 20th and after. I'm excited to see what the future has in store with the red seats in house, a solid senate, and what Obama's leaving office procedure is.
Buzzsaw - opinions on the new VP Pence?
Pence is a piece of gak
POS? - I thought we had a mod just mention the swear filter.
That wasn't really an opinion. I assume you were behind another Republican Candidate and went third party/no vote? Which speech of his did you watch? I thought he was extremely solid in Kaine vs Pence. I know he had a solid speech in Iowa how was the Chicago speech?
eidt: Thanks Buzzsaw. Yeah I've watched him speak a dozen or so times now, he's much better than what I originally envisioned when he was picked. I had no prior knowledge of him and had to do some digging. Compared to the Don's debates, he looked great. All of my friends are gun-owners and like him a lot. I will be an owner shortly in PA - but as of now I do not own one or follow the NRA at all
Besides the fact that he believes in and funds gay conversion therapy that results in a high suicide rate amongst the people put through it.
Unless you like kids killing themselves that is
You never mentioned that, you simply called him a POS.
Whats your opinion on our glorious Milo then?
This may be one aside too many, but I'm always interested in the primary objection people have to 'Gay Conversion' therapy.
What I mean by that is that, I think we can agree, the consensus opinion is that homosexual inclinations (especially in males) are inborn. They are no different, physiologically speaking, then red hair or brown eyes or being short or being fair skinned. They are all examples of amoral phenomenon.
Accepting, arguendo, that this is accurate, it seems gay conversion therapy and the arguments around it must fall in one of two possible camps;
-It's an outright fraud. This is what I call the laetrile option; laetrile, for those not familiar, is a fraudulent cancer treatment, a quack medicine, that gained some currency in the latter part of the 20th century.
The justification for outlawing laetrile is quite simple: selling it as a medicine constitutes a type of fraud, a deception that prevents legitimate contract formation. Similarly, we may assume that Gay Conversion therapy has no actual therapeutic value and outlaw it as simply the psychological equivalent of a quack medicine.
-Alternatively, what if an efficacious method of 'Gay Conversion' were developed? Let's remember, we've conceded that this is the physiological equivalent of curly hair or brown eyes. But the market is now full of ways to straighten hair and contact lenses to change your eye color to any color of the rainbow (and then some), to say nothing of advances in immunotherapy and psychopharmacology that are only beginning to enter the market.
If the logic of outlawing Gay Conversion Therapy is that it is a non-efficacious treatment, then that's a fine and indeed pedestrian position. It does, however, leave the problem that the legality of such a ban is technical, rather then moral.
In other words, the logic above has no purchase towards outlawing an efficacious Gay Conversion (however such might be developed).
Again, this is merely an aside. I'm interested in what people think about it.
What are your views on blue eye or blonde hair conversin therapy techniques? Mengele would really like to know. He had a few ideas of his own. Merely as an aside, of course. Ahem. Since you were interested.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 00:39:40
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
CptJake wrote: See all the protests in Austin, various places in California, and others today?
Did all those evil right wing racists have mass protests when Obama won?
Perhaps folks like Clinton and Obama have pushed this idea of the Evil Right Wing Boogey Man so hard that many of the folks like the lady I quoted see racism and hate even when they can't back it up with facts? They pushed racism SO fething hard that now it is impossible for those who accepted their vision to not see it.
Again, Trump got a larger percent of black and hispanic voters than Romney did. Perhaps there was a bit more to his message than what some of you are attributing to it?
I know the majority of folks who post in this topic are going to disagree with that, it is too easy to read a few pages in the topic to see that is the case. But the inner cities under Obama got worse, not better. Trump spoke directly to trying to fix them, and in a way that the party which has controlled the inner cities for decades has not done. Again, over 200 counties that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 went to Trump. That did not happen because he preached hate and intolerance.
thekingofkings wrote: I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant "The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall," and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility. There is a lot of rancor between right and left, and magnanimity in what is a complete victory could help heal these wounds.
Sure, that will happen, because Trump is the embodiment of grace and humility.
It's a nice thought, but those standards are way to high for the GOP to reach.
I really like how your response to "I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant... and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility" is... to belittle the President Elect and the GOP as a whole.
Self-reflection... not so much on your priorities, eh?
It's not belittling if it's the truth. After all his insane twitter wars and mocking everyone, do you really believe he's capable of bringing this country together and healing the divide? If you believe that, you might want to take some time for some reflection. I don't need any self reflection on this, I just call it as I see it.
Truly, unwavering certainty is oft the sign of the well examined life. You're inspirational.
You also, however, failed to noticed that you belittled more then Trump, unless "the GOP" is a new pronoun you have decided to apply to him. An echo of the royal We, perhaps?
The funny thing is, for all the talk earlier about Trump and crypto-Antisemitism, it was US Grant who entered the White House under an unprecedented cloud of suspicion of anti-Jewish animus. He was, after all, the issuer of the infamous General Order No. 11, which ordered the expulsion of Jews from his military district, comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky.
US Grant would, as historian Jonathan Sarna argues, become one of the greatest friends of Jews in American history, and the first President ever to attend services at a Synagogue.
No doubt I'll reflect on this, and the infinite capacity of people for both good and ill.
What are your views on blue eye or blonde hair conversin therapy techniques? Mengele would really like to know. He had a few ideas of his own. Merely as an aside, of course. Ahem. Since you were interested.
I absolutely support a person's right to do with their body as they wish, without interference from the state (I will make some allowances for a state mediated mechanism for determining efficacy). Do you think otherwise? If so, I can only point out the idea that the state may exercise such control over another person's body bears a great deal more similarity to Mengele's ideals then my own. That said, the truth is the truth, no matter the source.
Also... you do know these things actually exist, right? Do you believe that the FDA should refuse to approve an efficatious treatment that would turn brown eyes blue?
If so, on what basis? If not.. well, then what's the argument against a similar treatment, but one directed at changing inborn elements of sexuality?
No offense, but you seem to have a strong opinion, but rather then express it, you make a rather ham handed comment that... well, doesn't add much, if I may say.
CptJake wrote: See all the protests in Austin, various places in California, and others today?
Did all those evil right wing racists have mass protests when Obama won?
Perhaps folks like Clinton and Obama have pushed this idea of the Evil Right Wing Boogey Man so hard that many of the folks like the lady I quoted see racism and hate even when they can't back it up with facts? They pushed racism SO fething hard that now it is impossible for those who accepted their vision to not see it.
Again, Trump got a larger percent of black and hispanic voters than Romney did. Perhaps there was a bit more to his message than what some of you are attributing to it?
I know the majority of folks who post in this topic are going to disagree with that, it is too easy to read a few pages in the topic to see that is the case. But the inner cities under Obama got worse, not better. Trump spoke directly to trying to fix them, and in a way that the party which has controlled the inner cities for decades has not done. Again, over 200 counties that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 went to Trump. That did not happen because he preached hate and intolerance.
Also, your "He got more minorities, he's not racist see!" is bs. Mcain and Bush got more of the black and Latino vote (substantially more in the case of the Latino vote, which tends to lean socially conservative). I'm not exactly sure how Romeny messed up that bad... especially since he got a greater percentage of the votes than Mcain.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
CptJake wrote: They pushed racism SO fething hard that now it is impossible for those who accepted their vision to not see it.
Republicans here and elsewhere have done a marvelous job of ignore his rather blatant remarks, even if we were to look back and decide far more attention was paid to them than they warranted (I would disagree but we could do that). It is not a coincidence that for the first time in 70 years the KKK saw membership increase in 2016, or that for the first time since the 1930s someone representing a Nazi party actually got up and made a statement addressed to the country rather than his narrow band of like minded friends.
Trump has made racist remarks, and America has again shown it is willing to ignore racism when it has "more important" things to worry about.
Again, Trump got a larger percent of black and hispanic voters than Romney did.
If fewer people went out and voted (and fewer blacks and hispanics voted this year than four years ago), and Trump got out the vote while Hillary didn't it's not surprising he might have retained voters that have generally voted Rep. It's a leap to translate that into "Trump won minorities over."
Perhaps there was a bit more to his message than what some of you are attributing to it?
"What do you have to lose by trying something new, like Trump?” he said. “What do you have to lose? You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”
People rather effectively noted the racist undertones to this comment, not so much in what it says but in the very familiar tone it takes. Trump is calling back to American paternalist sentiment. That blacks should put up, and let whitey fix their problems. It's incredibly racist, and an American original. It's foolish to presume that African American activists are incapable of reading between the lines here. The same is true of White Power in America.
There is more to it however and I think people did miss the effect of this statement. Voter turn out among blacks was down, and I think that's because while the statement was really addressed to appeal to the latent racist of white America, it also serves to point out the futility of voting to African Americans. They didn't flock to Trump en masse and they never were. The core areas that flipped and won Trump the election are white not black, but in the same what that Trump challenged the reason the Rust Belt has historically voted blue, he challenged why African Americans continue to vote blue. The Democrats haven't really been helping them. They get paid lip service, but that service never materializes into actual help, and Trump's words brought that reality to the forefront. Thus turn out among black voters was weak. Trump effectively pointed out that voting for HRC wouldn't help them.
One of the successes that comes out of the polling we see now is that Trump not only rallied a base to himself, but he managed to break the opposing base down by challenging the basic notions of why they vote the way they do.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/10 01:11:45
I'm sorry, what? You're calling them intolerant because they say they won't just accept a racist with open arms?
Being intolerant to some one who is intolerant is still being intolerant. and it makes no one right.
just do the dude and abide. because there is not much else to do without destroying everything.
Well when you are tolerant towards the intolerant you are supporting the intolerance and it still makes no one right.
So take the moral high ground and do what is right. Stand up against the intolerant.
You do realize you just took a whack at the Paradox of Tolerance and came out endorsing intolerance, right?
Rather then apportion rights to people by dividing them into the tolerant and the intolerant, I would argue that we act in accordance with the moral maxim "Do not do unto others what would be hateful were they to do it to you." Thus, intolerance of the intolerant is, simply, intolerance.
