Regarding the difference between polls and election results: maybe many people are racist, sexist xenophobes and if they tell the preference in public, they get rightfully derided for it. But with the secrecy of the ballot, they can give into their deep desire to kick out the Muslims and the Blacks, kick the females back into the kitchen and make America white again.
There are other reasons to support Trump. Being an unorthodox person who they perceived as nonjudgemental, quite a few people have confided in me that they like him. Only one of these people was white, several were female, and none are particularly racist.
Reasons I've been told include:
- A "fuck you" to the establishment and orthodoxy.
I know it's tempting to level the worst insult you can think of - raaaciiiissstt - against anyone who disagrees with you. Consider the possibility that this is what allowed Trump to win in the first place.
I've done a fair bit of arguing with the folks here on HN, it's interesting because it doesn't match the echo chamber I have on twitter or facebook. There seem to be a lot of Trump supporter here, which I find very surprising.
This idea keeps coming up again and again that using the word 'racist' in the context of the Trump campaign is essentially name-calling, an insult.
The problem is, racism is a big, big, big issue. And Trump is a racist bigot, you simply cannot deny it. That's why people that are described as 'on the left' feel so strongly about him. It's not 'pulling the race card', it's an actual big problem. America has spent 200 years trying to overcome it, and it's still so far behind. The open racism displayed by Trump is the reason why so many people viscerally hate him. Add to it the sexism (and sexual assault), the bullying, and the xenophobia, and the support for him becomes essentially unfathomable for many who consider his attitudes and behaviors completely incompatible with basic democratic values.
The article posted calls it smug, the commuter above called it 'not tolerating dissent'. I would call it a zero tolerance policy on racism, sexism, bullying and xenophobia.
Using 'racist' in the context of criticizing Republicans is just name-calling. Bush displayed no open racism, bullied no one, and was not xenophobic. Same for Romney. Yet the anti-Trump language is just a more hysterical version of the anti-Bush and anti-Romney language.
At some point the term "racist" came to mean "insufficiently left wing". This happened because left wing types called every Republican "raaacciiiiist" - like a bored shepherd boy yelling "wolf" for amusement and likes on social media.
Trump is looking to get about the same amount of votes as Romney.
Clinton is getting a lot less votes than Obama got.
So there is an alternative explanation there, that rather than one group of people getting sick of shrill accusations of racism, a different group of people just doesn't like Hilary Clinton all that much.
A whole coalition of groups with different reasons for not voting for Clinton.
I'm just pushing back against the "unprecedented Trump blowout" narrative. So far he's got less popular votes than the loser of the last presidential election (Romney got 60,933,504 votes. Trumps at 59,088,517 with 98% of precincts reporting. He probably won't pick up another 1.8 million votes).
A different argument is that Trump attracted new people to the polls. I'd be more inclined to believe that many of those people are sick of establishment politics and their tactics. But I don't think they are actually a majority of Trump's support.
Bush was pretty inclusive racially. McCain too. IDK about Romney, but Mormons have written history and religion that makes him suspect on that, but he campaigned reasonably.
Trump campaigned openly on a racist, xenophobic platform. They were key parts of his rhetoric and key to a good proportion of his winning. That is the difference here.
And we're right back to smug. You smugly state that it's a zero tolerance policy on racism, when it's going to be the progressive cohort who gets to declare things racist. Specifically, they'll cry racism every time someone disagrees with them. Don't like what the president wants to do? Racist. Have an issue with Mexico? Racist. Mildly suggest that college admissions should have a class based adjustment instead of racial quotas...racist.
Or just sit in the wrong place and you get to hear, "all white men are racist." It may guilt some to action, but it makes others disinclined to help.
Look at the #blacklivesmatter. Look at all the people who have been railing against police militarization for decades being called racist by the recent arrivals to the issue just because they say there is a larger problem.
I'm not a Trump supporter... far from it however looking at my HRC social media bubble it's clear that practically 95% of my social circle are way off base when it comes to their analysis of why Trump won, which is precisely why he did win. If you don't understand your 'enemy' you cannot organise against him... or in this case liberals are so out of touch of what life is like in less fortunate areas of the country that they cannot begin to communicate with the people that live there on a level playing field. We needed a more extreme version of Bernie but instead we got offered the status quo. Racism, which has always been a big problem, has very little to do with this election and the sooner we accept that the better for everyone. This is economic.
Do you have any examples of what you call racism from Trump. I haven't been following him super close (not American), but from what I've seen he wants to tighten up immigration. It's my understanding that this is not racism, but protectionism. Here in NZ it's very hard for people to immigrate here (I have had friends have to leave) but we don't associate racism with tight immigration policy.
For example there were proposals to not allow Muslims to immigrate to the US. There was calling Mexicans 'criminals' and 'rapists'. Beating of black people at Trump rallies (which he endorsed).
This shows up this night on my twitter feed:
"I am at a Trump rally in Manhattan, and thousands are chanting 'We hate Muslims, we hate blacks, we want our great country back'. Disgusting"
https://twitter.com/SRowntreeNews/status/796141495573155840
Uh, no. I wrote that something 'showed up on my twitter feed', implying it's unverified. Last night there wasn't a way to verify it, it merely seemed plausible. In any case, the Huffpost article sufficiently makes the case.
I want to agree with you but Muslims are not a race. Neither are Mexicans for that matter. And being Islamaphobic and xenophobic genuinely is different from being racist. Perhaps not very different, but different nonetheless.
It's worth bearing in mind that the US is a much more racialized society than the UK. We don't think of 'Mexican' or 'Muslim' as racial categories. But they de facto are racial categories in the US. That may not be very logical, but then neither are most Trump supporters. How many of them do you think are able to carefully parse the distinctions between 'Latino', 'Mexican' and 'illegal brown person'?
And of course, racism very often comes wrapped up in other prejudices which are thought (rightly or wrongly) to be more respectable. All of the groups Trump has targeted are groups that just so happen to consist mostly of people who aren't white. They're the groups that, in the public imagination, are responsible for the loss of an imagined homogenous White America.
Trump can't say "I want a white America". But the people who do want this haven't had any difficulty picking up on his hints.
>So they think he's xenophobic and religiously bigoted instead? How is that better?
He is not against all immigrants. He is ONLY against ILLEGAL immigrants. He still supports LEGAL immigrants from all over the world.
Also, he is not against the Islamic religion. He is just against immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism.
>I'm not making up the fact that white supremacists supported Trump.
The KKK also supports Hillary too, so that's just the typical election rhetoric you see every four years.
These are misconceptions by people who have not listened to Trump's rally speeches. They only hear a small part of the quotes without the context and form these misconceptions about him. And now, they're shocked and confused to find that the majority of the country supports him.
> Also, he is not against the Islamic religion. He is just against immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism.
He expressly called for all Muslims to be barred from the United States. I'm afraid that claiming he's "not against the Islamic religion" is not a fact-based argument.
Which he also later clarified to meant immigrants from countries with direct ties to terrorism. And TEMPORARY only, until they can figure something out, like a vetting program, from those countries with direct ties to terrorism.
He wants to protect everyone from terrorism. Yes, he wants to protect Muslims from terrorism too. He even asked them for their help in the fight against radical terrorism, because he knows that terrorism affects them too.
But it is not xenophobia to want to keep terrorists out by temporary stopping immigration from countries with ties to terrorism. And that has nothing to do with their religion. It has to do with the fact that terrorists want to blow people up.
Calling that xenophobia and religious bigotry is just a straight out lie.
ONLY the Muslims IMMIGRANTS from countries with direct ties to terrorist groups.
So how can he be racist if he's only banning the Muslims from countries with direct ties to terrorism, and not ALL Muslims? He's not banning ALL Muslims immigrants like you claim.
And this has nothing to do with religion. An immigrant don't even have to be Muslim. ANY immigrants (ANY, not just Muslims) that are attempting to enter the United States from a country with direct ties to terrorism will not be allowed into the United States until vetting can be done.
Like I said, election rhetoric meant to smear the opponent.
Voters are smarter than this. Voters care more about the real issues that are affecting them (jobs, economy, etc). They don't care who the KKK is voting for. The result of the election have shown that.
We have no way of knowing whether they genuinely support Trump, or whether they did actually support Hillary like they claimed to. It's all election smearing and rhetoric, which voters don't care about, as the election results have shown.
We know that David Duke supported Trump. We don't know of anyone associated with the KKK supporting Hillary. That the voters don't care is to their discredit.
We do know of Hillary's mentor, he claimed to have left the KKK. We know of other KKK Grand Master who have claimed to have donated to Hillary. It's all just claims and accusations to smear the opposite opponents in the election cycle. These are not important issues. Voters knows these are just election smears.
Fair enough if the stuff with Trump Management Corporation and his action at the casino are correct I'd say it's a fair call he's probably a bit racist.
Not allowing Muslims in could be seen as racist, but I don't know that was at the core of what he was trying to do. Don't get me wrong I don't think it's a good idea. But 100% of radical Islamic terrorist are Muslim so banning them would have made people less afraid of the radical Islamic threat the media were hyping up as ISIS was taking hold of Iraq. It's dumb and unfairly treats good honest safe people, but racist is a stretch.
That tweet holds little water with me each side has been mud slinging, most of the time it's either BS or an exaggeration.
>And Trump is a racist bigot, you simply cannot deny it.
There you go with the name calling again. How about you listen to Trump supporters for once. Or maybe you just don't want to know the real reason why Trump supporters supported Trump.
This is the issue. People did not vote Trump to satisfy hateful racism and sexism, they voted Trump despite everyone painting them as racist sexist pigs.
The other option was so far from what they wanted they had little choice. Please try to understand why people disagree with you, why the majority disagrees with you.
Many democracies in Europe have or have had extreme right nationalists/fascists in power and much of the same trajectory happened. Uttering that there might be problems with immigration policies was a complete taboo as the extreme right made extremely strict (and thus different) policies there a major point of their discourse.
But what happens when you don't discuss a subject that the voters consider (right or not - that's not even the issue!) important and worrying?
It wasn't until the subject was considered debatable by more centrist parties that this rise was halted, or at least coupled with less worrying ideologies.
Indeed. Here is the great truth - for most people, race matters, and always will. They want to live with people of the same ethnicity, with the same history, in the same territory.
The breakup of Yugoslavia suggested ethno-nationalism was on the rise, but the elites continued to push (if not intensified) mass immigration in the West.
This has created the seedbed for the new "anti-politics". It is in its first phase, and I expect it to last for around 30 years.
I think you overstate your defense. Some people did not vote Trump to satisfy hateful racism or sexism. On the other hand, some most certainly did. In my neck of the woods, that some is not an insignificant amount.
Beyond that, anyone who attempts to deny the sexism/misogyny of the Trump campaign and its pull with some of his supporters must have entirely missed all the various materials/items made & sold with hateful messaging about Clinton, using sex-based slurs and insults. The evidence is there and overwhelming. Around here, people are proud to wear those shirts and buttons and affix stickers to their cars with the messages. We will continue seeing them for some time in this area.
EDIT: You might be interested in perusing this stream of day 1 after the election:
The problem is, I don't buy it. I don't believe it. I listen to how Trump talks, how Trump supporters talk, all the racism, the sexism, the xenophobia, it's just not right. There's no excuse.
It's the beginning of fascism.
Btw, I'm German.
(I've lived in North America for more than ten years)
Trumps treatment of women in the past makes my skin crawl, as an individual I think his behavior on that count is despicable. But if I were given the option of Hillary or Trump I'd vote Trump.
I might be wrong but I've not heard him say anything that is racist. No doubt there are some that are supporting him because they're racist, that doesn't mean all are. On that note I would love someone to prove me wrong and show me a clear example of Trump actually being racist.
I'm a conservative Christian. As a conservative, the left look down on me and assume there is only ignorance fueling my world view. There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus as a life, I get it. But imagine for a second that you were firmly convinced that a fetus was as much a life as a new born. Things like that will drive you to vote Trump despite hating some of his actions.
The left also treats Christians with disdain. You have to get people on side if you want them to vote for you. Not tell them they're idiots.
While I don't agree with them some see gun rights as fundamentals to their freedom. You can't just tell these people were going to restrict guns, you have to get them to believe that it's for the best. Not tell them they're idiots. Then call them racist sexist bigots when they don't vote your way.
Immigration in the states is not in a good way, having so many people living illegally is not good for anyone. Trump might sound harsh but at least he is willing to tackle the problem (even in a way I'd not go for).
Well, you say abortion is an issue that feels like a Holocaust to you.
To me racism and xenophobia are the the things that fuelled the actual Holocaust. I tried to outline some of the racism inherent to Trump further up.
To be honest, I don't understand conservative Christians love for republicans. They preach social darwinism, often they preach fear of others. Is it all based on this notion that "The left also treats Christians with disdain"?
My view of Christianity (I come from a more Lutheran view...) is one of 'love thy neighbor' and charity towards the poor as the guiding principles. I consider myself a humanist, but understand that my flavor of Western humanism is essentially the non-secular continuation of Christian values -- which are inherently compatible with leftist values that are also very much based on compassion and empathy. This all seems to be incompatible with the hatefulness I see from republicans, especially somebody like Trump. To me, Trump is a selfish nihilist.
One of my favorite Presidents is Jimmy Carter, and his strong moral center based on religious beliefs is the main reason.
This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism. Personally I'm more middle of the road on socialism VS capitalism. But I tend to vote and align with parties on their moral stance. Even though Trump appears to have a crappy personal Moral standard his policies at least align more with the conservative end. I'd rather a hypocrite that legislates conservatively (Even though that's a really crappy thing to have as the best option).
But on the Christian view, there are actually themes in the Bible that talk about a "worker deserving his wage", and "if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat". So I don't know if Christianities version of "Love thy neighbor" is what non Christians think it is. The concept of Love in Christianity doesn't always map to what non Christians see as Love. For example discipline is seen as a form of love. Sometimes doing something that is unpleasant for an individual but helps them in the long run can be seen as love. But to be honest I don't think biblical concepts really align with the left or the right.
If I were convinced as you are that Trump wanted to introduce racist policies as president then I'd agree there is no way in good conscience to vote for him. I'm not yet convinced of that and as I'm not American did not bother researching enough to be fully convinced.
But then I don't know who I'd have voted for. I'm not a fan of Hillary and then there is the Libertarian and Green candidates, neither really align with my moral views either.
It would have been nice if there was a strong moral candidate, but I don't know that either were this election.
>here are actually themes in the Bible that talk about a "worker deserving his wage", and "if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat".
wow some fantastic turns of logic you are using.
Christian means Christ-like. did Christ preach social darwinism, or did he spend his time with prostitutes and lepers?
Did Christ preach having the poor fend for themselves, or did he feed the hungry?
Did Christ praise the wealthy, or does he say "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
You can of course interpret your religion as you see fit, but in my eyes, right wing politics is incompatible with being Christ-like.
There is a lot more to Christianity than being "Christ-like". The parent's point is there exists a healthy serving of many unChrist-like, by your definition, ideas in the Bible. And even then, there is much more to a religion than its holy texts or doctrine.
I'd leave it to the practitioners to exhibit what it means to be one of their followers, and it seems the American practitioners haven't noticed this incompatibility you're concerned about.
Well, the entire first half of the Bible is before the birth of Christ, and when Christ arrived the religion began whats called the New Covenant with God, replacing the old covenant which bound followers to the old laws of the old testament.
something being "in the bible" is meaningless without its context. Theres quite a breadth on the capturing, keeping and treatment of slaves - would you argue that these verses are the same as Christs teachings?
>As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.
> You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.
>You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.
But hey, if you think being a Christian means following any phrase you happen to pick out of the Bible, go for it.
FYI: This reply is exactly one of the "smug styles" that the original article highlights:
> Christianity, as many hastened to point out, is about love. Christ commands us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. If the Bible took any position on the issue at all, it was that divorce, beloved by Davis, was a sin, and that she was a hypocrite masquerading among the faithful.
> How many of these critiques were issued by atheists?
> This, more than anything I can recall in recent American life, is an example of the smug style.
This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism.
A cynical and maybe excessively nasty answer is that people that just care about lower taxes have pandered to moral conservatives in order to get tax cutting representatives elected.
The more nuanced answer is probably that there has been a coalition for 30-40 years along those lines. I think over the next several elections, those alignments are going to shift in a big way. Trump doesn't come from the historic coalition, Sanders almost won as an outsider in the Democratic primary. The parties are not well aligned with the electorate.
The simple explanation is that the left won't touch socially conservative ideas, leaving the right free to pander to that base. Combine this with policies that look like tax cuts to the casual observer and you've got a winning formula, despite that fact that the socially conservative electorate isn't interested in libertarian capitalism at all.
Just look at how Trump changed his views on abortion to pander to the social conservatives, and as a consequence won huge evangelical support.
So the right has taken the attitude that they don't care about morals, they'll adopt any policy which allows them to win so they can go about pushing the agenda of liberal capitalism for the benefit of themselves. Sure, there are some genuine moralists on the right too - but none of those just won an election.
I'm not sure I count as part of the left, but as an atheist, I have no trouble understanding a fetus was as much a life as a new born as an honest and principled position. On the other hand, I'm not sure how you come to a political compromise with people that disagree with it (how do they reach out?).
"I have no trouble understanding a fetus was as much a life as a new born as an honest and principled position" Starting with that is huge. Getting called a women hater, or getting told as a man you have no right to have an opinion, or get written off as a religious idiot, starts to polarize your opinions. But when each side recognizes the others opinion is valid then you can start to look for a compromise.
Personally I think making abortion something that has to be legislated at the state level and leaving moral issues up to public referendum would go a long way to removing it from the normal political divide.
> On the other hand, I'm not sure how you come to a political compromise with people that disagree with it (how do they reach out?).
I've often found myself with the same question. What's a satisfactory answer for "THIS IS MURDER!?" vs. "Eh, I don't think so, more like a nasty wart...". I understand both, but I just don't see place for a bridge other than telling one side to get over it.
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
I've never understood this argument. Why doesn't that apply to feeding and clothing a new born? If you give birth to a child and let them die in the cold that is seen as murder. Why does a parent have to provide for a child before they were born and not after.
Also many societies have concepts where people are required to care for others, parents and close relatives.
I just don't agree, I think if the violinist has only one chance at life and that one chance has been wasted because he was tethered to you without concent then he should have the right to life. But the people who did it should also go to jail for a very long time.
The difference wrt kids is that you have an option to refuse care in the long run, eg by giving up kids for adoption. In the violinist example, if lets say a suitable volunteer is available but needs time to come to the hospital, then yes, you need to stay attached for a short while and disconnecting would be immoral. But if this choice is not given to you, can you be expected to sacrifice an important chunk of your life for someone else?
Otherwise, should you be compelled to donate one of your kidneys?
> "There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus as a life, I get it. But imagine for a second that you were firmly convinced that a fetus was as much a life as a new born."
Okay, so here I am - lifelong progressive Democrat. And I'll open up to this discussion.
So, I'm believing that at the moment of conception a full viable life is formed. And that life has the full rights and protections afforded by the State (both federal and all levels beneath).
Let's start with the simple route - the parents are happy to have the child, are financially capable, and medically sound for delivery. In this nothing is different from how it is today. A healthy child is born to a happy family.
Our differences seem to come from all the complications in the process.
Let's start with an understandable one - the life of the mother is in danger if she delivers the child. This is a horrifying decision. Does the state force the delivery of the child and thus condemn the mother to death? Is not one of the roles of modern medicine to protect people from death? This is, after all, why we now give birth in hospitals.
So, before I go further arguing with myself - what's your rationale as a conservative Christian on that scenario? Is it really as simple as "protect the child's life at all costs"?
For what it's worth - I don't think anyone's an idiot for being on the conservative side. I think a lot of the issues we struggle with in this day and age (such as abortion) are just far more complicated and intricate than most give credit for.
"Life of the mother" is very different from "it's my body", though. If I believe that life begins at conception, I can perhaps bend to a "life of the mother" exception. "It's my body"? But it's not just your body - there's another life involved as well - so you can't just do what you want with your body.
Okay, so you can bend to "life of the mother" exception. I can follow this a bit further then.
How do you handle and account for miscarriages? A sizable number of pregnancies end in miscarriage - especially if we view life as beginning at conception. So in miscarriage the mother has ended the life of the child.
What's the framework with which you believe this should be dealt with? What's to be done with people who have biological disorders leading to problems with gestation? After all, if life starts at conception then it's pretty quickly no longer just a woman's body.
How is a miscarriage any different to an infant dying of natural causes?
Sometimes babies die naturally it's sad, but there is a huge difference between dying naturally and dying due to intervention or neglect.
Surly you can see there is a big difference between a woman having medically difficulty bringing a child to term and an abortion? In the one case she has done all she can to provide for the child in the other she has actively pursued this child's termination.
If the mother and the child are going to die with out intervention you attempt to save both. That may mean an early birth or c-section giving the child little to no chance at survival, but you still try, you still treat that child as a human.
Of course I see the difference. But think of the perspective of the state here. The state must protect the life of the child, as it is a full citizen of the state.
When an infant dies of natural causes it's usually trivially simple to rule out murder. But in the case of miscarriage/abortion the procedure for early-term abortion simply causes a miscarriage. So in order to adequately protect the life of the child we'd need to be able to determine if the miscarriage was forced or not.
What, in your view, is the ideal role of the state as a protector of life in this situation?
I think if the mothers life is at risk the doctor has to make the call on who to save. Sometimes this has to happen. I'd compare it to triage, docotors sometimes have to make a call that means one person lives and another dies. I have no issue with this as long as they recognise both lives and make judgments based on that.
I also followed the elections very closely and I don't buy the "racism", "sexism" and "xenophobia". I looked up a lot of scandals and looked at the speeches, videos and leaks itself. Often times I didn't consider the outrage as justified.
Example 1: Trump never called all mexicans racist, what he said was that a lot of the people crossing the border are criminals while other s are decent. Some of the criminals are racist.
Example 2: His "approval" of sexual assault, was nothing but locker room talk. Two guys "out alphaing" each other in a not so nice way.
As a conservative from Germany that has been accused of racism for showing support for the shut down of the balcan route I find it much easier to sympathize with the falsely accused then with the accuser.
That doesn't mean that I agree with Trump, but I would have voted for Trump over Clinton.
Yeah but one could have observed that shouting/bullying down someone because of their beliefs is counterproductive in getting them to reconsider them. It's not like there wasn't any warning to this.
