Part the Second
This gets to the heart of what has me so damn annoyed in general.
They didn't ignore the bigotry and supremacism and bullying; they reveled in it.
Is it that you want to exonerate them for personal sympathy, for existential sympathy, or for anti-Hillary sympathy? That is to say, are you shocked and appalled and feeling sorry for them, to the one; actually sympathizing with cause, to the other; or just looking for more self-satisfaction in someone having stopped Her?
Because letting them off the hook is how we empower them.
They couldn't. Not with John McCain. Not with Mitt Romney. But a gaslighting sexual assailant versus the prospect of the first woman president?
You should probably also take a look at recent history. Conservatives went nuts. Frank Rich↱, for instance, circa 2010:
The perpetual intersection of supremacism with all these other concerns is obvious.
Eleven point eight. That's the number. In 2009, the best efforts to get information about or answers from House Republicans pertaining Birtherism suggsted eleven point eight percent of the House Republican Caucus (twenty-one of one hundred seventy-eight) backed the Birther line. Republicans just nominated and elected a Birther. That part is still pretty consistent.
Republicans will back cops shooting unarmed black people but aid and abet armed white people threatening to kill law enforcement.
I mean, seriously, this stuff has been scorching us in recent years.
You really think his followers will blame him? On what evidence do you base this projection?
The turnout canard is wearing thin. 2008: 129,446,839 votes total, 69m+ for historic winner (first black president). 2012: 126,849,299 votes total, 65,915,795 for winner. 2016: 134,265,339 votes total, 64,654,483 for loser, 62,418,820 for winner, 7,192,036 for others.
George W. Bush won 2004 with less votes than Donald Trump, taking 62,040,610 of 121,070,610 votes. He won 2000, despite losing the popular vote, 50,456,002 from all of 101,455,899 total votes.
Remember Bill? In '96 he won forty-seven million votes out of less than ninety-five million. He took just under forty-five million in '92, out of 103m+.
Additionally, depending on who and when we might have asked, voter turnout was either a twenty year-low (53.5%) or on par with 2012 (58%), and in the long term isn't so bad for the U.S. The vote turnout argument, just like the bit about historically unpopular candidates, is merely an excuse.
Oh, for ....
No, seriously: Really?
You're the one legitimizing dishonesty.
Again, check the numbers. Look, man, whatever your damn problem is, you're just embarrassing yourself when you subordinate your narrative to irrationalism. Seriously, you're the guy who can talk about losing the primary when you want to tout your wisdom, but can't resist the chance to take a shot at Hillary Clinton so you turn around and claim voters picked another nominee. You're the one who's just fine with believing an acknowledged smear campaign just because it targets some woman you don't like. Try dealing with reality. True, it's a lot less gratifying in those moments of gnashing, sweaty fantasy, but you know, at least you're not ranting like a conservative.
Priorities are as priorities do. This is yours.
____________________
Notes:
Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. 28 March 2010. NYTimes.com. 29 November 2016. http://nyti.ms/1HH6NRf
Rosenberg, Paul. "We don't have 'two historically unpopular candidates': What the media gets wrong about candidate popularity". Salon. 6 October 2016. Salon.com. 29 November 2016. http://bit.ly/2e19pGd
This gets to the heart of what has me so damn annoyed in general.
They didn't ignore the bigotry and supremacism and bullying; they reveled in it.
Is it that you want to exonerate them for personal sympathy, for existential sympathy, or for anti-Hillary sympathy? That is to say, are you shocked and appalled and feeling sorry for them, to the one; actually sympathizing with cause, to the other; or just looking for more self-satisfaction in someone having stopped Her?
Because letting them off the hook is how we empower them.
They couldn't. Not with John McCain. Not with Mitt Romney. But a gaslighting sexual assailant versus the prospect of the first woman president?
You should probably also take a look at recent history. Conservatives went nuts. Frank Rich↱, for instance, circa 2010:
If Obama's first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House―topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman―would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver―none of them major Democratic players in the health care push―received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.
The perpetual intersection of supremacism with all these other concerns is obvious.
Eleven point eight. That's the number. In 2009, the best efforts to get information about or answers from House Republicans pertaining Birtherism suggsted eleven point eight percent of the House Republican Caucus (twenty-one of one hundred seventy-eight) backed the Birther line. Republicans just nominated and elected a Birther. That part is still pretty consistent.
Republicans will back cops shooting unarmed black people but aid and abet armed white people threatening to kill law enforcement.
I mean, seriously, this stuff has been scorching us in recent years.
You really think his followers will blame him? On what evidence do you base this projection?
The turnout canard is wearing thin. 2008: 129,446,839 votes total, 69m+ for historic winner (first black president). 2012: 126,849,299 votes total, 65,915,795 for winner. 2016: 134,265,339 votes total, 64,654,483 for loser, 62,418,820 for winner, 7,192,036 for others.
George W. Bush won 2004 with less votes than Donald Trump, taking 62,040,610 of 121,070,610 votes. He won 2000, despite losing the popular vote, 50,456,002 from all of 101,455,899 total votes.
Remember Bill? In '96 he won forty-seven million votes out of less than ninety-five million. He took just under forty-five million in '92, out of 103m+.
Additionally, depending on who and when we might have asked, voter turnout was either a twenty year-low (53.5%) or on par with 2012 (58%), and in the long term isn't so bad for the U.S. The vote turnout argument, just like the bit about historically unpopular candidates, is merely an excuse.
Oh, for ....
No, seriously: Really?
You're the one legitimizing dishonesty.
Again, check the numbers. Look, man, whatever your damn problem is, you're just embarrassing yourself when you subordinate your narrative to irrationalism. Seriously, you're the guy who can talk about losing the primary when you want to tout your wisdom, but can't resist the chance to take a shot at Hillary Clinton so you turn around and claim voters picked another nominee. You're the one who's just fine with believing an acknowledged smear campaign just because it targets some woman you don't like. Try dealing with reality. True, it's a lot less gratifying in those moments of gnashing, sweaty fantasy, but you know, at least you're not ranting like a conservative.
Priorities are as priorities do. This is yours.
____________________
Notes:
Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. 28 March 2010. NYTimes.com. 29 November 2016. http://nyti.ms/1HH6NRf
Rosenberg, Paul. "We don't have 'two historically unpopular candidates': What the media gets wrong about candidate popularity". Salon. 6 October 2016. Salon.com. 29 November 2016. http://bit.ly/2e19pGd
―Fin―
