The Election Night Thread - Part 2

[Alex Murphy]

So last night was just a dream right?

The nightmare is just beginning.

 

[Iceman]

Look I'm not defending Trump being an abhorrent racist here, and thats really not the point so let's get that straight. But if you're down and out, and can barely keep food on the table for your family, and your life skill is becoming increasingly useless, if someone comes along and for the first time in years promises to change your personal situation, even if that person if a bigot I dont think you're going to care much about "principles" especially those that in no way affect your day to day existence. If I live in Snyder County, PA racial inequality in Philadelphia may just as well be on Mars.

I think you have a point. I just find it hard to sympathise with those who are willing to throw others under the bus as long as their needs are taken care of. But yes I otherwise agree.

 

[Iceman]

Who was more mis guided? Trump supporters or Bernie or Bust? I say bernie or bust. At least Trump supporters got what they wanted.

Whenever you have an "or bust" after what you want you usually end up with bust. And bust is usually worse than the thing you are protest voting against.

 

[Dark Raven]

Am i the only one that thought of this?

Any chance Trump will eventually have to resign from office over his own Trumpgate scandal?

Or will he not do the decent thing and even resign? Will he just deny and sue?

 

[Paradoxium]

No, better odds Clinton will be indicted instead.

 

[Paradoxium]

People should read The Incredible Hulk's post. Instead of calling these same blue collar whites a bunch of racists.

But that won't happen, gonna double down.

 

[Dark Raven]

No, better odds Clinton will be indicted instead.

Is Trump going to make good on his promise to throw Hillary in jail?

I don't know if the two candidates will ever appear on stage together again in the wake of this election, but if they did by way of Hillary congratulating Trump, will he still be threatening to have her investigated with his team of special prosecutors?

 

[Shikamaru]

Chomsky hit the nail on the head.

Noam Chomsky: Why It's a Big Danger to Dismiss the Anger of Trump Voters
"Why are we failing to organize these people?"

In the past 15 months, Noam Chomsky has weighed in on the U.S. presidential race often.

"There are differences in the parties," he said in February, when asked if he'd even consider a Republican over Hillary Clinton. "Small differences [coupled with] great power can have enormous consequences."

Chomsky initally favored Sanders over Clinton, but insisted Democrats must win at all costs. Because according to Chomsky, if Trump wins "the human species is in very deep trouble."

But as for Trump's supporters, Chomsky's not counting them out just yet.

"I'm basically judging by what I see and read about them listening to talk radio and so on," Chomsky admitted of the protests on the right. "But my strong impression is that these [right-wing protesters] are people with very real grievances."

"They give the impression of being hard-working serious people who think they've been doing everything right. They've been doing what they're 'supposed' to do [as] god-fearing hard-working, gun-carrying, you know patriotic, Americans," Chomsky continued.

"What are they doing wrong and how come their lives are so crummy?" Chomsky asked.

It's a question that has plagued the election.

"They're not getting answers," Chomsky insisted. "The answers they are getting are not only crazy, but extremely dangerous, so the right response is to ask ourselves, why are we failing to organize these people?"

There's nothing partisan about losing money to Wall Street or lacking health insurance; issues at the forefront of protests from both sides for nearly a decade.

"We have not succeeded in unifying people," Chomsky noted. "It's our fault."

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/deplorable-noam-chomsky-owns-leftists-dismissing-outrage-right

He has a point. Dismissing Trump supporters as a bunch of racists is only counterproductive in the long run.

 

[Marvolo]

People should read The Incredible Hulk's post. Instead of calling these same blue collar whites a bunch of racists.

But that won't happen, gonna double down.

They may not all be racist but they all just declared that they are ok with racism and bigotry under the right circumstances. That they will support racism and bigotry as long as they get what they want and "need". There are some things we all have to be able to tolerate to vote, (Hillary's tech illiteracy and some of her blunders were some things I had to accept to vote for her.), but I personally draw the line at racism and bigotry. I wont accept or support those things in exchange for anything Trump was offering.

 

[Legendver2]

Is Trump going to make good on his promise to throw Hillary in jail?

I don't know if the two candidates will ever appear on stage together again in the wake of this election, but if they did by way of Hillary congratulating Trump, will he still be threatening to have her investigated with his team of special prosecutors?

She did say in her concession speech that she'll pledge to work with Trump for the betterment of America. How much of that actually happens remains to be seen. But just so you know, they were friends just a few years back, so I won't imagine Trump will actually go that route if she approaches him with a soft stance.

 

[Marvolo]

Is Trump going to make good on his promise to throw Hillary in jail?

I don't know if the two candidates will ever appear on stage together again in the wake of this election, but if they did by way of Hillary congratulating Trump, will he still be threatening to have her investigated with his team of special prosecutors?

He cant jail Hillary. He is a president. Not judge. Not jury. Not grand jury. Not a part of the judicial branch.

The only way Hillary goes to jail is if there is evidence, a legal trial, legal prosecution.

 

[Dark Raven]

He cant jail Hillary. He is a president. Not judge. Not jury. Not grand jury. Not a part of the judicial branch.

The only way Hillary goes to jail is if there is evidence, a legal trial, legal prosecution.

But he did want to appoint a special team to investigate her, perhaps more so than the FBI already have, until they find the evidence required. Perhaps he wants to harass her and make her life difficult now. Or was that all campaign talk and he will end up doing nothing?

 

[terry78]

https://vid.me/vCB3

Video I just took downtown Chicago from the second floor of Target.

 

[Donner]

He cant jail Hillary. He is a president. Not judge. Not jury. Not grand jury. Not a part of the judicial branch.

The only way Hillary goes to jail is if there is evidence, a legal trial, legal prosecution.

I'm sure his voters will conveniently forget his promise to lock her up. So much hate in them, I'm surprised they get through the day without violence.

 

[ThePhantasm]

But he did want to appoint a special team to investigate her, perhaps more so than the FBI already have, until they find the evidence required. Perhaps he wants to harass her and make her life difficult now. Or was that all campaign talk and he will end up doing nothing?

the Clinton Foundation is still under investigation by the FBI

 

[DeadPresident]

They may not all be racist but they all just declared that they are ok with racism and bigotry under the right circumstances. That they will support racism and bigotry as long as they get what they want and "need". There are some things we all have to be able to tolerate to vote, (Hillary's tech illiteracy and some of her blunders were some things I had to accept to vote for her.), but I personally draw the line at racism and bigotry. I wont accept or support those things in exchange for anything Trump was offering.

People who are trying to put food on the table don't always have the luxury of making moral decisions, material circumstance was probably the biggest factor in many people's decision. The massive decline in America's blue collar industry has impoverished a lot of people, it's made them desperate. It doesn't excuse their complicity with Trump but it explains it.

As trendy as it is these days to denounce anyone who doesn't paint themselves an all inclusive paragon of moral virtue, it might be constructive for Americans to try and understand why their "opposing" voter base voted the way they did. There's a set of disturbingly racist people who have rallied behind Trump, but rather than 47% of Americans trying to start their own Third Reich I think a lot of people were just conned into thinking Trump will protect their interests. That's what representative democracy is about, people vote for the person or party who they think will protect their interests. An underlying part of this election's discourse has been that if a blue collar white American wants their interests protected they must be racist - and that feeling (real or not) of alienation is what sent people into Trump's arms.

 

[Kane52630]

the Clinton Foundation is still under investigation by the FBI

And Trump is gonna be on trial for fraud.

 

[Paradoxium]

the Clinton Foundation is still under investigation by the FBI

And DOJ has been the cockblock. The new AG+DOJ won't be.

 

[Kyle]

People who are trying to put food on the table don't always have the luxury of making moral decisions, material circumstance was probably the biggest factor in many people's decision. The massive decline in America's blue collar industry has impoverished a lot of people, it's made them desperate. It doesn't excuse their complicity with Trump but it explains it.

As trendy as it is these days to denounce anyone who doesn't paint themselves an all inclusive paragon of moral virtue, it might be constructive for Americans to try and understand why their "opposing" voter base voted the way they did. There's a set of disturbingly racist people who have rallied behind Trump, but rather than 47% of Americans trying to start their own Third Reich I think a lot of people were just conned into thinking Trump will protect their interests. That's what representative democracy is about, people vote for the person or party who they think will protect their interests. An underlying part of this election's discourse has been that if a blue collar white American wants their interests protected they must be racist - and that feeling (real or not) of alienation is what sent people into Trump's arms.

REAL: Bigots, KKK, Nazis, etc. voted for Trump and see him as their godsend.

BOGUS/FALSE: All Republicans are bigots or secretly bigots.

There is a difference.

Just hopefully people are sane enough to see that one doesn't equate the other, which I am seeing a lot of.

 

[Legendver2]

People who are trying to put food on the table don't always have the luxury of making moral decisions, material circumstance was probably the biggest factor in many people's decision. The massive decline in America's blue collar industry has impoverished a lot of people, it's made them desperate. It doesn't excuse their complicity with Trump but it explains it.

As trendy as it is these days to denounce anyone who doesn't paint themselves an all inclusive paragon of moral virtue, it might be constructive for Americans to try and understand why their "opposing" voter base voted the way they did. There's a set of disturbingly racist people who have rallied behind Trump, but rather than 47% of Americans trying to start their own Third Reich I think a lot of people were just conned into thinking Trump will protect their interests. That's what representative democracy is about, people vote for the person or party who they think will protect their interests. An underlying part of this election's discourse has been that if a blue collar white American wants their interests protected they must be racist - and that feeling (real or not) of alienation is what sent people into Trump's arms.

I understand and more or less agree with this reasoning. My issue is, as bad as Hillary was, I genuinely believed that if she was elected, she'd make an effort to work her way to appeal to that crowd as well t slowly heal the divide. Her mistake was not doing that since the beginning of her campaign. Trump, however, I'm not sure if he'll even attempt to appeal to Hillary's supporters and unite the nation.

 

[regwec]

Good post, DP.

 

[Dark Raven]

And Trump is gonna be on trial for fraud.

What about the child rape trial? When is that supposed to come up?

And what happens if Trump is found guilty? Is he impeached early on in his term or even before he is sworn in?

 

[Legendver2]

What about the child rape trial? When is that supposed to come up?

And what happens if Trump is found guilty? Is he impeached early on in his term or even before he is sworn in?

I believe she dropped the case. Don't quote me on that though.

 

[ThePhantasm]

she did drop the case

 

[DeadPresident]

REAL: Bigots, KKK, Nazis, etc. voted for Trump and see him as their godsend.

BOGUS/FALSE: All Republicans are bigots or secretly bigots.

There is a difference.

Just hopefully people are sane enough to see that one doesn't equate the other, which I am seeing a lot of.

Unfortunately this is what extremist identity politics has done to the country, initiated strongly and subversively by the right a couple of decades ago and taken up by the left more recently.

As an aside, something I came across while reading your response; as a bit of a thought experiment I have a question for all the anti-Trump people, please read this article:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/pol...irus-whose-sole-purpose-is-preserving-itself/

Now, please imagine the following article headlines:

"Blackness in America is a virus whose sole purpose is preserving itself"
"Gayness in America is a virus whose sole purpose is preserving itself"
"Jewishness in America is a virus whose sole purpose is preserving itself"

Those theoretical article headlines sound like they would come from alt-right, crazy-courting cesspools, right? Or from Nazi Germany? Or from slavery-era USA? But in 2016 invalidating a specific identity group, and doing so with the presupposition that its existence is a blight on a nation is seen as progressive.

The stark truth is the left has gone at least from a discursive point of view on a media witch hunt of "whiteness" - whatever that might be, since apparently all whites across income, ethnic and cultural lines are apparently one single entity. By propagating articles like the one above they're signaling something to white Americans, some of whom are indeed racist. But, how many times can a reasonable, non-prejudiced white person be told that they are a "virus" before their instinct for self-preservation kicks in and they fall under the spell of someone who claims to defend their interests?

The left needs to realize they played their part in this. If Trump's supporters didn't feel like they were under threat they never would've rallied behind him as they did. These kinds of articles aren't rare, either, "critical" theories such as these are commonplace among so-called progressives these days. This is why the right is on the rise in Europe too. We desperately need more reasonable discussions where people acknowledge one another as human beings first, and not faceless demographic categories on a home affairs document.

This prevalent notion that "whiteness" is some kind of disease is a growing one, and it is partly why Donald Trump won. When a 50 year old, average Joe factory worker loses his job and can't find work for several years sees people outside his demographic group call him a racist and bigot because he'd like the right to earn a living in his country, how long does it take him before nationalist rhetoric seems logical?

I understand and more or less agree with this reasoning. My issue is, as bad as Hillary was, I genuinely believed that if she was elected, she'd make an effort to work her way to appeal to that crowd as well t slowly heal the divide. Her mistake was not doing that since the beginning of her campaign. Trump, however, I'm not sure if he'll even attempt to appeal to Hillary's supporters and unite the nation.

I have no doubt Hillary would've worked relatively well at attempting to unite across the aisle. The problems the democrats had was they assumed her victory, they were looking at her as the de facto president when they chose her as their candidate. They didn't ask themselves "Can our primary candidate beat the Republican primary candidate?". It seems like they discounted how much of a stigma, rightly or wrongly, there is around the Clintons and how many votes that cost them.

Hillary, while a competent and experienced politician, is not an engaging or inspiring candidate. In the realm of politics as theater you need to be able to capture people's imaginations and Clinton was one of the few candidates that did not offer any kind of appeal on a base level. The novelty of Bernie's ideas, while economically not advisable for a country like the USA, would have likely gotten him elected because it would have rallied people behind him. The democrats nailed their flags to Hillary without ever considering whether her candidacy was even viable.

Good post, DP.

Trying to make hay while the sun still shines. Reasonable discourse is going to die a brutal death on this forum shortly, I can tell.