On American Appeasement

[ElectricFetus]

No EF. It is an indication that your attempts to pander to only the white vote is not working and as a result, those who would normally vote Democrat are not supporting you. Again, ask yourself why minorities and women tended to not support Bernie Sanders in the primaries, particularly minorities.

First of all who said pander to "only" the whites?

Women did not support bernie sanders? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-women-generational-divide/index.html -> seems young women did, maybe because they prioritize their jobs and debt over seeing a women in the white house

Again Blacks did not back sanders because they did not know him, and these were not general election voters either.

Lets look at the 2008 primary: did Hillary Clinton not support black people, is that why they voted for Obama over her? https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...lack-vote-should-have-seen-it-coming-or-going

This isn't winning strategy. It is bigoted strategy.

Says someone who thought Hillary Clinton would beat Trump.

He only turned to African American issues when he was absolutely forced to and was left with no choice but to address their concerns (they had to protest his rallies to get him to respond, for goodness sake!)

BLM is all black people now.

If your candidate cannot even bring himself to acknowledge what causes economic inequality for all and if he cannot discuss or acknowledge that class warfare and economic inequality is closely tied to 'race' in America

Ok so is it sexism or racism that is the cause of economic inequality?

Keep only pandering to white voters and ignoring women and minorities, and you will not win another election. It is that simple.

Oh so Hillary Clinton was only pandering to whites then? And Trump was getting the women and black vote? Once again: Primaries are not general elections, it is that simple.

Oh hey, look, more inventions..
His campaign openly said their priority was the "white vote".

You said "and I love how you ignore the evidence that they did so to maintain their white male superiority and the status quo." are you saying then that his campaign priorotized white vote (uncited claim by you) to "maintain their white male superiority"?

Which explains why what he pushed for in Colorado (universal healthcare) and candidates like Feingold and Teachout did so well in the general election, yes? Prop 61 in California?

If Sanders’ platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders’ platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big.​

​

And that was in the general election. Does not bode well. And his refusal to address issues that affect minorities and women and his dismissing them, for example, does not bode well.

Except Bernie Sanders was not on the 2016 Ballot, Clinton was, and as a result all progressive priorities were suppressed. Once again your whole argument is that "Bernie would never win" ok then, would Clinton win, oh wait we know with 100% certainty she could not, your argument is a theoretical verse a fact.

How many minorities did Bernie Sanders have working for him as his staff in Congress before he ran for President?

How many did Trump? Did trump get the minority vote? Who is president now?

Lets go over how US voting works: cities vote overwhelming democrat, blue states are primarily urban population states, democrats minority base would be behind what ever candidate is put up in the general election against trump, regardless if you believe Bernie hates blacks or not, none the less the minority votes is NOT enough to win the presidential election.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Sexism and racism yes. Which in turn lead to classism. Sexism is tied directly to patriarchy, which is again tied to classism. The same applies to racism. Transphobia also applies to sexism and thus, patriarchy and classism.

Classism, patriarchy, bigotry, misogyny, is driven by a dismissal and hatred and lack of respect for others.

Wow, so here is where we finally disagree on philosophical grounds. No, you are wrong. The fundamental core problem is greed, humans will fuck over each other for resource and power, everything is a outgrowth of this. There is no fixing this fundamental of human nature, not until the technological singularity that is, until the Great Circuiting the only solution is to take from the rich and provide to the poor.

If sexism and racism lead to classicism then how is there classicism in racially homogeneous countries, let me guess it is the sexism somehow? Might as well be the Jews, or the Illuminati, or the reptilians.

If sexism is the cause, why are man the majority of homeless? Why are men sent to die in wars, doing all the shittiest jobs like mining coal and digging ditches... let me guess the patriarchy? Might as well be the Jews, or the Illuminati, or the reptilians.

What I'm saying is your ideology is fundamentally untestable, it is a boogie man that can't be unproven to exist, ergo must be behind everything wrong in the world.

When I see people without jobs and education and money, my solution is provide them jobs, education and money, your solution is to find the racial and/or sexism that somehow causes it all and then what... whine at it, bitch at it?

When people like you blame all whites, all males, and demand nothing be given to them, that they don't have problems, then Trump is what we get.

 

[pjdude1219]

No, please tell me what I'm not understanding.

appartently basic math. equal input into unequal systems leads to unequal output. its been the fundemental complaint against you that your arguing that the systems of

x=y
x+7=y
2x-1=y
12x=y
will for a given value of x somehow all have the same value for y too.

 

[Bells]

First of all who said pander to "only" the whites?

Sanders campaign did, when they advised that their priority was white voters. The fact that they never bothered to even support their own black outreach programs that were meant to try to woo black voters, they shunned them. Sanders barely spoke to black media or minority media unless he was forced to and made it clear he was not happy about it. 34 years in Congress and Sanders never hired a single black person on his staff? Come on, who are you fooling?

Women did not support bernie sanders? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-women-generational-divide/index.html -> seems young women did, maybe because they prioritize their jobs and debt over seeing a women in the white house

Actually, Clinton garnered more votes from women than Sanders did. Certainly, Sanders did better with young women, but those over 30 and upwards, favoured Clinton. His numbers in regards to women of colour dwindles compared to Clinton.

Again Blacks did not back sanders because they did not know him, and these were not general election voters either.

They did not know him because he refused to engage with black voters. Which kind of goes to what I was saying before. Sanders did what he could to draw in white voters and ignored black voters until he realised that he was being trounced when it came to black voters, particularly black female voters, by which point it was too late and a futile and obvious exercise. His failure to attempt to even connect with black voters is why they overwhelmingly voted Clinton, who did attempt to address the issues that concerned them, such as institutional racism, bigotry, redlining, police brutality, access to healthcare, nutrition, health and the environment.

Lets look at the 2008 primary: did Hillary Clinton not support black people, is that why they voted for Obama over her? https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...lack-vote-should-have-seen-it-coming-or-going

Ermm I would have thought the answer to that one was obvious. Obama did better with black voters because he engaged with them better and he was the first ever African American Presidential candidate. That was kind of obvious, I'd have thought..

Says someone who thought Hillary Clinton would beat Trump.

Says someone who watched the Sanders train crash happen and could it see it coming from a mile away, because he was only interested in the white vote, particularly the white male vote and his deliberate actions when it comes to minority voters and his refusal to even address issues that affect their communities, said plenty.

BLM is all black people now.

Not that you are stereotyping or anything black people or anything....

Ok so is it sexism or racism that is the cause of economic inequality?

Both. And more.

Oh so Hillary Clinton was only pandering to whites then? And Trump was getting the women and black vote? Once again: Primaries are not general elections, it is that simple.

No she was not. Clinton won the popular vote by a fairly wide margin.

To the one, you ignore just how Sander's policies did badly in the general election, including the candidates who were pushing his platform in the general election.. To the other, you are literally twisting what has been said out of context to do so. Kind of pathetic really. And sad.

You said "and I love how you ignore the evidence that they did so to maintain their white male superiority and the status quo." are you saying then that his campaign priorotized white vote (uncited claim by you) to "maintain their white male superiority"?

I provided a quote from an article where they interviewed his campaign staffers. I also provided a link to that article, so to claim it is "uncited" is exceptionally dishonest of you and false.

Secondly, his campaign advised staffers that their priority was the white vote. Are you denying that Sanders was not after the white male voters who were drawn to Trump? That he was doing what he could to draw them to him, at the expense of those who traditionally vote Democrats, such as women and minorities? His campaign even insulted and demeaned the black vote:

Bernie Sanders is going to eventually have to take in that reality. As he saw his hopes in the South crushed by black voters, who went four or even five to one for Clinton, his campaign made noises—increasingly unpleasant noises, to the ears of some black voters—about how that might change as the race moved from south to north. Campaign manager Jeff Weaver insulted black voters by dismissing Clinton as a “regional” candidate only popular in the South. Jane Sanders, the candidate’s wife and best surrogate, even suggested that the “Obama coalition” was a shopworn, 2008 phenomenon; a new “Sanders coalition” might make it possible for her husband to win with the support of fewer African Americans and more working-class whites.​

I said that Sanders openly prioritised the white vote over that of minorities and his campaign openly advised its staff that this was where its priority lay. There is a lot to be said for the voters of Sanders, who preferred to vote for Trump over Clinton and how much do you want to bet that they were white males? Sanders never hid the fact that he pandered to the white male vote.

Except Bernie Sanders was not on the 2016 Ballot, Clinton was, and as a result all progressive priorities were suppressed. Once again your whole argument is that "Bernie would never win" ok then, would Clinton win, oh wait we know with 100% certainty she could not, your argument is a theoretical verse a fact.

Good grief!

His platform was on the ballot in the form of candidates and things like universal healthcare in Colorado, which even Democrats voted down. Do you understand now?

If he was going to have won that election, then States that had his platform on the ballot, such as universal healthcare, and States who had far left progressive candidates that pushed Sanders platforms, should have won by a landslide. They did not. Instead, the landslide went the other way.

Do you understand now? You say that Bernie would have won the election because he was offering universal healthcare, etc. Universal healthcare was voted down by 80% of the vote in Colorado in the last general election in a Democrat State. His far left progressive candidates, who were pushing his platform, also lost their bid for Congress. Do you understand how this translates? He may not have been on the ballot, but his policies and platform was on the ballot in several States by way of laws and candidates. And they all lost. In the general election.

How many did Trump? Did trump get the minority vote? Who is president now?

You still don't get it, do you?

 

[Bells]

Wow, so here is where we finally disagree on philosophical grounds. No, you are wrong. The fundamental core problem is greed, humans will fuck over each other for resource and power, everything is a outgrowth of this. There is no fixing this fundamental of human nature, not until the technological singularity that is, until the Great Circuiting the only solution is to take from the rich and provide to the poor.

And you say this while ignoring your country's history which shows a direct link to poverty among African Americans, for example, and the centuries of policies that were based on racism and bigotry...

Astonishing, really.

If sexism and racism lead to classicism then how is there classicism in racially homogeneous countries, let me guess it is the sexism somehow? Might as well be the Jews, or the Illuminati, or the reptilians.

You mean countries like Japan, for example?

Income levels between men and women in Japan are not equal; the average Japanese woman earns 40 percent less than the average man, and a tenth of management positions are held by women.[3] Women are often found in part time or temporary jobs. 77% of these jobs were filled by women in 2012.[5] Among women who do work, women-only unions are small in size and in relative power.[24] A common occupation for young women is that of office lady, that is, a female office worker who performs generally pink collar tasks such as serving tea and secretarial or clerical work.
[...]
In one poll, 30% of mothers who returned to work reported being victims of "maternity harassment", or "matahara"​

You want to know about who is most affected by poverty in Japan?

Go on, take a guess.. Now try and argue that it is not based on sexism.

If sexism is the cause, why are man the majority of homeless? Why are men sent to die in wars, doing all the shittiest jobs like mining coal and digging ditches... let me guess the patriarchy? Might as well be the Jews, or the Illuminati, or the reptilians.

1) Well, for a start, a larger portion of homeless people in the US are veterans. Secondly, men are less likely to seek help for mental and psychiatric issues, resulting in their losing their jobs, housing, etc.

2) Men are sent to die in wars because women have traditionally been barred and banned from serving in combat roles in the US military. Which means that more men see the front lines in combat than women do.

3) "doing all the shittiest jobs like mining coal and digging ditches".. Women have been traditionally locked out of these roles and jobs throughout history.

You know, it helps if you actually understood history. Instead of delving into obscene stereotypes that frankly border on the anti-Semitic.

When I see people without jobs and education and money, my solution is provide them jobs, education and money, your solution is to find the racial and/or sexism that somehow causes it all and then what... whine at it, bitch at it?

And when you cannot provide them with jobs and money because the employer will not hire black people and the banks do not loan to black people by ensuring they have no branch in predominately black areas, what is your solution going to be? Do you a) address the systematic and entrenched racism that has resulted in that person being unemployed or b) tell them that the racism they are experience does not matter?

When people like you blame all whites, all males, and demand nothing be given to them, that they don't have problems, then Trump is what we get.

I am not blaming all whites and all males. I am pointing out what exists in your society. You seem to take that as an insult to white males and you seem to believe that minorities and women having fundamental human rights and equality somehow equates to black people losing something.. Which says a lot about you, really.

 

[pjdude1219]

No EF. It is an indication that your attempts to pander to only the white vote is not working and as a result, those who would normally vote Democrat are not supporting you. Again, ask yourself why minorities and women tended to not support Bernie Sanders in the primaries, particularly minorities.

On Super Tuesday, powered by enormous support among black voters, Clinton swept Sanders in five Southeastern states and took a commanding lead in delegates that she never relinquished.

In Virginia, exit polls showed that Clinton won 84% of the black vote to Sanders’ 16%. In Arkansas, she beat him 91% to 9% among black voters. In Alabama, the margin was 91% to 6%.

Black voters cast their ballots for Clinton so overwhelmingly during the primaries, especially in the South, that their preference for her felt like a warning: Ignore us and we will bury you.

In Southern states that voted on Super Tuesday, even black voters ages 18 to 29—a slice of the electorate that Sanders’ team believed they had a shot at—voted for Clinton 61% to 36%.​

Is this a winning strategy?

um your also forgetting the fact the clinton was from arkansas and sanders from vermont. sanders had almost no recognizition on a national level hillary clinton had been in the public eye for over 20 years these things matter. like the DNC trying to rig the primary in favor of clinton. any honest person will admit that as fact. the bernie bro movement was to a large degree based on russian meddling. yes electric is a dick and been a raging asshole since the election but you don't get to push back his lies and manipulations with your own. and quite frankly thats exactly what your doing trying to shade things in the best possible for you decision but ulimately your playing games with the facts and reality and thats not ok in my book. could sanders have done better with women, poc, and LGBYQ+ voters yes a lot better saying that as a bernie supporter but at the same time clinton did act entitled to win and just expected the old rust belt union states to vote blue just as they always have. she dropped the ball there and pretending it was disgruntled sanders supports who cost her the election just isn't the case. not to mention your attempts to paint all of bernies supporers as racist or anti women. women under the age of 30 overwhelming voted for sanders to the degree of like 2 thirds of them. and lets not forget some of hillory's bigtime supporters ugly comments on that basicly saying those girls just wanted to get laid so followed the guys basicly. and in the under 30 bracket didn't do good but didn't shit the bed either almost getting 40% there. so clearly there were people here who thought well of them. which this will lead to something that happened during the primary season which was in a post Tiassia said something that was to the effect of telling me a thirty year old bernie supporter that me and my gernerations views didn't , that our values didn't matter, that are ideas didn't matter, and that we didn't matter til it was time to vote on the candidate that older people had decided was best for the democrats because they know better. to witch my response is so thats why the republicans took over most of the country because ya'll knew how to win. i said it once and i'll say it again until all us aholes getting. mistakes were made across the board by all our candidates and top staff and they all need to be fixed if we to start winning. we need to adapt a warm body stratagy. we need to find candidates that meet our progressive views on economics, racial justice, and sexual justice(ie. women and LGBTQ+) issues and we need to run them nationally, at the state level, and at the local level.

 

[douwd20]

The republican base was not what won Trump the election, it was obama to trump voters: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html

And no Bernie or Bust people did not cost Clinton the election if you were wondering: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.b77903d550cb



You mean he shot up in late July of 2015: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

I would say that is a fine correlation, but not causation, plenty of other things he did that could explain his rise:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politics/donald-trump-summer-surge/index.html

"Even though I'm a Republican and I'm obviously voting that way, I'm very disappointed in the Republicans in the House. There's weakness there," said Julie Pagliarulo, a 56-year-old resident of Belmont, New Hampshire, who arrived hours early to see Trump speak. "Donald just says it like it is. I love it."

On a recent muggy summer evening, residents here were angry about everything from border security and the economy to Benghazi, Obamacare and more. Trump was speaking to their grievances, an approach that helps explain his rise in the polls.
Bert Hansen, 74 years old, joined hundreds of voters jammed into an overheated community center in Laconia waiting to see Trump. The soft-spoken veteran believes Obama is "incompetent" and bristles when recalling a relative who once said he was racist because he doesn't like the president. In fact, Hansen said, he's a big fan of GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, who is black.
"There's some pent up frustration in the population right now that's ready to explode," Hansen said said. "That's why Trump's doing so well."

New Hampshire voters said Trump spoke to their broad range of concerns. But his greatest appeal may be that they see him as authentic and unfiltered. The opposite, voters said, of even the Republicans they elected to serve them in Congress.
"When he talks, he talks like them. He has the same frustrations they do," said Craig Robinson, a GOP activist in Iowa and editor of The Iowa Republican website. "They still want someone who's just going to turn Washington on its head.

Enough American voters are fed up with politicians failing them economically, that are willing to vote for trump just to fuck "Washington", in this highly anti-establishment miasma we did not run our own anti-establishment candidate, Bernie Sander, but instead the most establishment candidate we could get, Hillary Clinton.

Now did some people vote for trump because "fuck mexicans" sure, but they were not the primary reason he won, nor are they a demographic we could get votes back from. We need to focus on demographics we had but lost, we need to focus on the reasons why and target it, doing so does not mean we need give up on blacks, women or gays or what ever, it is just a matter of selling what that demographic is interested in them, which is economic justice, which by the way most blacks women, gays and trans would like and would benefit from.

Correlation not causation? What could he have possibly said in 30 days to cause such a leap? What economic pie-in-the-sky could have done it as he had been shoveling the same garbage for months. No in June he said the magic words his base wanted to hear:

"It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."​

We will skip all the lies Trump told about how great he would be for the common man. It's just another con from a man that spent a lifetime conning people. And people love hearing lies apparently far more than ever realized which spells doom for the country but that's another class.

Check out the Trump's database of lies:

In 227 days, President Trump has made 1,114 false and misleading claims​

Jennifer Rubin sums it up nicely: the GOP under Trump has defined itself as the white grievance party - bluntly, a party fueled by concocted white resentment aimed at minorities.

 

[ElectricFetus]

And you say this while ignoring your country's history which shows a direct link to poverty among African Americans, for example, and the centuries of policies that were based on racism and bigotry...

Question: how many poor white people are in America? http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?dataView=1&currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

Sure per capital blacks are on average poorer, sure there is racism in the worlds and it causes oppression, that is why asians and jews are poorer then whites too... oh wait.

Anyways when the majority of the poor are a demographic you ignore and even blame for all the worlds problems, trump is the result.

You mean countries like Japan, for example?

Income levels between men and women in Japan are not equal; the average Japanese woman earns 40 percent less than the average man, and a tenth of management positions are held by women.[3] Women are often found in part time or temporary jobs. 77% of these jobs were filled by women in 2012.[5] Among women who do work, women-only unions are small in size and in relative power.[24] A common occupation for young women is that of office lady, that is, a female office worker who performs generally pink collar tasks such as serving tea and secretarial or clerical work.
[...]
In one poll, 30% of mothers who returned to work reported being victims of "maternity harassment", or "matahara"​

Oh japan is a very traditional society, that is why 74% the household budget in japan is controlled by women
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-19674306

So why get a job when you can have a slave work for you?

Sure it is sexism, your just thinking the wrong sex. Half of young men in japan are forging women
because decades of economic stagnation means they can no longer supply the traditional lifestyle the average japanese woman demands in which he works >60 hours a week, she takes the money and gives him an allowance or "okozukai" and she homemakes. If the standard of marriage was for you to literally be a slave would you get married? Frankly jacking off to an anime figurine sounds better.

1) Well, for a start, a larger portion of homeless people in the US are veterans. Secondly, men are less likely to seek help for mental and psychiatric issues, resulting in their losing their jobs, housing, etc.

Wait wait wait your saying men CHOOSE not to see psychologist, your saying men disproportionately make this choice? And that choice is their fault? Jee tell me do you think women might disproportionately make choices too, career choices, life choices, would that too be their fault? Our are all these choices a product of patriarchy too, or is it only the choices women make? Well certainly it is all part of a system to benefit men right?

2) Men are sent to die in wars because women have traditionally been barred and banned from serving in combat roles in the US military. Which means that more men see the front lines in combat than women do.

Why were women barred and banned? Tell me if you where given the choice between staying with the children or protecting the family/country by fighting to the death against an attacker, which would you choose? Did men have a choice or was it their duty as men? Sure women were not given a choice either but frankly were given a better deal.

3) "doing all the shittiest jobs like mining coal and digging ditches".. Women have been traditionally locked out of these roles and jobs throughout history.

Again why do you think that is? If you were given a choice between mining for coal or raising the children which would you choose? Sure women were not give a choice either but frankly were given a better deal.

You know, it helps if you actually understood history. Instead of delving into obscene stereotypes that frankly border on the anti-Semitic.

Oh your going to imply I'm anti-semitic now? Do you understand how historical jews are a scapegoat, do you understand why we are still a scapegoated, because it is impossible to disprove: there are Jews everywhere, and there are disproportionate numbers of jews in banking, law, politics, media, sciences, the conclusion given is that jews are secretly controlling everything and oppressing everyone else. The premise is true, but the conclusion is un-falsifiable.

You think that is anti-semitic, yet you don't think it is anti-male to say men disproportionately make money (forgetting who disproportionately is spending that money) and take leadership positions, ergo men must be oppressing women. You don't think it is anti-white to say whites disproportionately are richer then blacks (forget about the poor whites, fuck 'em) ergo whites must must be oppressing blacks.

You are using the very same logic as any other bigot: X are better off then Y, therefor it must be because X is oppressing Y.

And when you cannot provide them with jobs and money because the employer will not hire black people and the banks do not loan to black people by ensuring they have no branch in predominately black areas, what is your solution going to be?

Ok go back a step here, we need to win back the goverment, right? Now what is an issue we can use to do that, well economic justice issues is polling well and it is a progressive position, you don't disagree with taxing the rich to provide services and lower taxes on the poor, do you? We can get the most votes from everyone, especially the demographic we lost, on an economic justice platform, once we get back the goverment then we can make laws that incentivize and punish employers that don't hire blacks and banks that don't give loans to blacks, we can even hide such systems being claimed as anti-white by simply targeting the poor, helping former convicts, helping single parents, helping poor parents, who are disproportionately nonwhite or female.

But instead if we say "check your cis white male privelege" and pander directly to just minorities, then we lose, as we did with Hillary Clinton.

Do you a) address the systematic and entrenched racism that has resulted in that person being unemployed or b) tell them that the racism they are experience does not matter?

I tell them "your unemployed, ok here is a job, you need a home, here is a home, you need some money, here is some money"

[/QUOTE]
I am not blaming all whites and all males. I am pointing out what exists in your society.[/QUOTE]

Jews have disproportional holdings in banking, law, politics, science, media, I'm just pointing out what exist in society. I'm not blaming jews

You seem to take that as an insult to white males and you seem to believe that minorities and women having fundamental human rights and equality somehow equates to black people losing something...

When you say blacks and women come first, that their issues are somehow the foundation of all oppression, that insults white males who are poor, have shit jobs and little education, you are ignoring a very large demographic, one that has particular power thanks to the electoral college, and frankly yes you are blaming them if indirectly.

Which says a lot about you, really.

Oh no I'm a dirty jew, oh I am so ashamed.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Correlation not causation? What could he have possibly said in 30 days to cause such a leap?

Lots of things? He says lots and lots of things, the pig does not shut up.

We will skip all the lies Trump told about how great he would be for the common man. It's just another con from a man that spent a lifetime conning people. And people love hearing lies apparently far more than ever realized which spells doom for the country but that's another class.

Yes that is fundamental to what happened, people have become distrustful of politicians lies, but specifically how politicians lie, and here came a kind of liar they were not inoculated too, behaved totally different from any sane politician they have seen before, from outside the system a party hoping boar promising to fuck Washington with is little twisted pig penis, and because most Americans are uneducated morons they fell for it, worse even the streetsmart ones would rather prefer burning it all down via electing a huskster moron then continue on.

pjdude1219,

Truth is truth, if it makes me a dick and raging asshole to point that out so be it.

 

[iceaura]

I would say that is a fine correlation, but not causation, plenty of other things he did that could explain his rise:

They are all the same thing - as you keep reposting, he "spoke to their grievances".

The problem is the nature of those grievances: racist, misogynist, and otherwise bigoted delusions fostered by thirty years of Republican lies and slanders.

Appealing to such grievances, appeasing such delusions, pandering to that faction, is a bad idea.

 

[iceaura]

Sure per capital blacks are on average poorer, sure there is racism in the worlds and it causes oppression, that is why asians and jews are poorer then whites too... oh wait.

Anyways when the majority of the poor are a demographic you ignore and even blame for all the worlds problems,

You keep posting wingnut bullshit, and claiming you are some kind of "we" against Trump.
Trump got elected on that stuff.

Ok so is it sexism or racism that is the cause of economic inequality?

More Republican wingnut bs. Other people - non-Republicans, people not like you - can walk and chew gum at the same time.

The most significant reason the white working class is in economic trouble right now is that it remained racially bigoted and racially oppressive after WWII, continuing to oppress and abuse the large black and brown populations to this very day. That's what broke the unions, for example.

The second most significant reason was its oppression and abuse of women, which after WWII worked as another source of leverage against them, for the wealthy to use gain power over them. That's what blocked the expansion of the unions into "office jobs", for example.

That is not an exhaustive list. But from that first step in description you can see, immediately, that any attempts to gain economic justice without addressing race and gender are just rehashed Republican rhetoric designed in the first place (starting in 1968, increasingly sophisticated since, the basis of Trump's appeal) to get white men to vote against their economic interest.

 

[Tiassa]

#supremacism | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Content Warning: Click it to stick it in your breakfast burrito.​

Oh no I'm a dirty jew, oh I am so ashamed.

If I say you're hilarious, or adorable or whatever, when you do that, then I am lying, because, really, I mean, to the one, it's not funny, while, to the other, you're so goddamn bad at it, okay, yeah, it looks like you're aiming for farce.

Consider the bit where you ask↑, "Are women a hive mind to you?" This was a bizarre non sequitur derived from your pretense of ignorance↑. You asked, "What narrative?" after using right-wing lexicon and argumentative structure to dismiss the value of direct action; and as you were told↑ at the time:

Seriously, you don't get to just stop making sense every time you're afraid to answer. When you let the supremacists tell us what the problem is? When you can only describe circumstances according to conservative myth? What narrative? And, you know, consider women, for instance. For once. Why would women take your advice when you won't listen to what they're telling you? And you can't even explain to them why they should harm themselves in no small part because you don't respect them enough to bother trying.​

So you responded to that discussion about narrative by invoking a non sequitur in order to pretend women are apparently not capable of attending more than one of their human needs at once, a pretense so utterly stupid that it draws the obvious question↑—"Because both cannot be addressed?"—and now we are witness to hangnail prioritization↑—

(You're aware, of course, that catcalling and street harassment do, in fact, end up costing lives? But why worry about that, right? They're just women, and we need to be talking about "people", right? And you can resent such needling all you want except why would you keep exposing yourself to the criticism? But you don't get to dismiss lethal bigotry as a hangnail, as a general principle, and expect to be taken seriously. Neither do you get to keep pretending any sort of liberal credential; your behavior is easily identified as wannabe agent-provocateurism.)​

—and insupportable rubber-glue juvenilia:

And your not listening to men, at all. Again who is president right now? Do you understand what happens yet when you can't priorities problems? Problem number 1: WE DO NOT CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT! Everything else is secondary right now, because we lack the ability to do anything, other then bitch and whine.​

Then stop the bitching and whining.

You have no context, no basis whatsoever for your rubber-glue outburst that "your not listening to men, at all". Honestly, it's not clever. Really, I promise. It never has been; we didn't just make up the not-clever rule for you.

You need more than fury and fallacy.

But that rubber-glue bitchwine now-more-than-ever change of subject is also part of the setup for your tumble into Jew-baiting; as you continued:

The millions of poor white male, heck even poor white females are not dissuaded from the left because of their "delicate sensibilities" they are dissuaded because they prioritize their lack of jobs, their student loans, their lack of homes, their lack of healthcare, their lack of a future over microaggressions, transgender bathrooms and sexist office temperatures. They do this because they are sane humans, which your either not or your so privileged in your life that you actually put such problems as worse then bills, food, home, etc.​

And it was this word salad that drew a particular response↑ from Bells:

Again, if you cannot see that women, minorities and LGBT are human beings worthy of equal rights, you frankly do not deserve to win.​

And also, you know, maybe if you were capable of explaining ridiculous phrases like, "their lack of a future over microagressions", it wouldn't seem so much like your faux-liberal posture intends to "keep kowtowing to the right". Seriously, if you were able to make sense outside the alt-right, maybe your fake liberal poseur routine wouldn't seem quite so fake or, you know, conservative.

But, clearly the hit pissed you off, because you lost your Godwin plot:

• "So I could be a demon from hell for it is matters, go one, call me a nazi next, does not change the fact I'm right and you are what has destroyed the left and given us a pig boar for president." (#256↑)

• "This is an ad hominium you have construct, it is a complete lie and is total slander. I might as well say you hate jews and want to murder jews, that would be the same level of disgusting claim." (ibid)

• "Honestly I laughed at this comment from you. Why do you hate jews so much Bells? Look at your self just shivering with rage screaming 'why are you not in a gas chamber!?!?'" (ibid)

• "1. I do not care what you see me as, I know what I am, and ever time you claim I am something I'm not, I chuckle. You might as well be calling me a dirty scheming grubby jew." (#266↑)

• "Yes yes I'm a dirty jew, so dirty, anyways about those questions ... Is everyone that disagrees with you a right wing nazi?" (#274↑)

• "So is your counter argument is that this person does not believe in equality? You have no counter argument to their argument, you just imply they are a racist, sexist, homophobe, nazi, what ever label you want." (#292↑)

• "... do you relies 'the Jews are behind it' is as just a crazy as what you said? Only Alex Jone's level reptilians and/or inter-dimensional demons would be more crazy." (#294↑)

• "If sexism and racism lead to classicism then how is there classicism in racially homogeneous countries, let me guess it is the sexism somehow? Might as well be the Jews, or the Illuminati, or the reptilians." (#302↑)

• "Oh your going to imply I'm anti-semitic now?" (#308↑)

• "Jews have disproportional holdings in banking, law, politics, science, media, I'm just pointing out what exist in society. I'm not blaming jews" (ibid)

• "Oh no I'm a dirty jew, oh I am so ashamed." (ibid)​

Little bit desperate, there, ElectricFetus? Is there something you intend to accomplish by Jew-baiting?

†​

Update on edit: It occurrs to me that I can count back at least seven years↗ in which the right wing has had a difficult time deciding who's a Nazi and who's a Jew. I find it fascinating to have any reason to recall the point today. (5 Sept., 15.13)

 

[Kittamaru]

Oh no I'm a dirty jew, oh I am so ashamed.

Explain to me... in what reality is this statement supposed to be acceptable? For that matter... in reality is any of your latest diatribe supposed to be acceptable?

 

[Bells]

Question: how many poor white people are in America? http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?dataView=1&currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

Sure per capital blacks are on average poorer, sure there is racism in the worlds and it causes oppression, that is why asians and jews are poorer then whites too... oh wait.

Anyways when the majority of the poor are a demographic you ignore and even blame for all the worlds problems, trump is the result.

Explain to me, how does fixing racial inequality somehow equate to ignoring the plight of poor white people in America? Because if minorities are somehow given equal rights, this would harm poor white people in America, in your opinion? You are aware that you can focus on both, right? You are aware that when we talk about systemic racism or sexism in the US, that we are not doing so at the exclusion of poor white people but simply pointing out that these issues need to be addressed because minorities and women are human beings, deserving of their fundamental human rights, yes? You do get this, yes?

When you make these inane comments such as "how many poor white people are in America?" in response to commentary about fixing racial inequality which is a direct cause of poverty and exclusion for African Americans, you come across as the type of person who thinks that if minorities are given equal rights, that this would somehow harm the poor white people in America.

More to the point, your dialogue plainly leaves out the help that poor white people in America receive, which are not open to poor minorities. Addressing systemic racial inequality in America would level that playing field, allowing all Americans to access those programs. That when you start ranting about fixing the economy, without addressing the systemic racism and sexism, the only people who would benefit would be the poor white people, leaving minorities behind yet again, because you have utterly failed to address what causes their economic inequality in the first place...

Oh japan is a very traditional society, that is why 74% the household budget in japan is controlled by women
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-19674306

So why get a job when you can have a slave work for you?

Sure it is sexism, your just thinking the wrong sex. Half of young men in japan are forging women
because decades of economic stagnation means they can no longer supply the traditional lifestyle the average japanese woman demands in which he works >60 hours a week, she takes the money and gives him an allowance or "okozukai" and she homemakes. If the standard of marriage was for you to literally be a slave would you get married? Frankly jacking off to an anime figurine sounds better.

You whine about this, while ignoring that the systemic sexism in Japanese society forces women into these roles, whether they want it or not and if they try to break out of these roles, they are abused and harassed on a daily basis by Japanese men and society for failing to do what they were somehow or other meant to do as women. You also whine about this, while ignoring that if women were allowed equal participation in the workforce, the men would actually get to work less. But the men force women into these roles, despite their desire to work and have rights. Those "traditional lifestyles" is implemented by the males, EF. Not the other way around.

Wait wait wait your saying men CHOOSE not to see psychologist, your saying men disproportionately make this choice? And that choice is their fault? Jee tell me do you think women might disproportionately make choices too, career choices, life choices, would that too be their fault? Our are all these choices a product of patriarchy too, or is it only the choices women make? Well certainly it is all part of a system to benefit men right?

Yes EF. Men, by and large, do not seek psychiatric help or medical help for conditions like depression and other mental illnesses when these symptoms first appear. The fault lies with their fellow men, who will often mock or demean those who seek help, because of the whole 'real men', 'tough men', 'real men don't cry', 'showing emotion makes you like a woman' types of stigmas. These do not come from women, but from other men and males in society. And it is exceptionally problematic and the medical field, Governments and charity organisations that deal with homelessness, poverty, drug abuse, etc, are desperately trying to change that stigma.

Women being locked out of careers are not doing so by their own choice, but by the hiring practices of the men who run those organisations, EF. You do get that, right? Yes?

Why were women barred and banned? Tell me if you where given the choice between staying with the children or protecting the family/country by fighting to the death against an attacker, which would you choose? Did men have a choice or was it their duty as men? Sure women were not given a choice either but frankly were given a better deal.

Wow, tell me you did not just jump into the sexist trope when suggesting that women should be choosing to stay home with the kids instead of going into combat...

EF, did it escape your notice that allowing women into combat only became law in the last year or so in America, that prior to that, women were literally barred from active combat roles in the US military?

Your suggesting that women were given a better deal speaks to the issue itself. Women were never allowed in those roles and were denied based solely on the matter of their sex. You saying 'well, they got the better deal', kind of says it all. Do you want to know why? Because you are just another man, dictating what women should and should not be doing and dictating what is better for women.

I mean surely you cannot be this thick?

 

[Bells]

Oh your going to imply I'm anti-semitic now? Do you understand how historical jews are a scapegoat, do you understand why we are still a scapegoated, because it is impossible to disprove: there are Jews everywhere, and there are disproportionate numbers of jews in banking, law, politics, media, sciences, the conclusion given is that jews are secretly controlling everything and oppressing everyone else. The premise is true, but the conclusion is un-falsifiable.

You think that is anti-semitic, yet you don't think it is anti-male to say men disproportionately make money (forgetting who disproportionately is spending that money) and take leadership positions, ergo men must be oppressing women. You don't think it is anti-white to say whites disproportionately are richer then blacks (forget about the poor whites, fuck 'em) ergo whites must must be oppressing blacks.

You are using the very same logic as any other bigot: X are better off then Y, therefor it must be because X is oppressing Y.

There is no "imply". You are arguing like an anti-Semite. Because you are diminishing and demeaning what Jews have expressly suffered. You turn it into a mockery by adding it to fake conspiracies. What Jews suffered as a result of those stereotypes and bigotry was real. Neo Nazis march in the US, spouting those stereotypes and threatening Jews and minorities because of those stereotypes and you paint it like it is a conspiracy on par with those who think there are lizards disguised as people.

No, really, what kind of fucked up mind do you have that you think this is acceptable? Worse still, because you hadn't scraped the bottom of the gutter enough, you spout this rubbish in response to the fact that minorities and women in the US suffer from economic inequality because of entrenched bigotry.

And even worse than all of that, you do this while repeating the same sexist and bigoted stereotypes while whining about how bad white men have it.. Frankly, at this point, you are no better than those tiki torch waving fools chanting about how minorities would not replace them. If this is how you view politics and the left, or if this is what you think the left should become, you literally do not deserve to win. At all. In fact, if this is the direction the left is heading in, the left is no better than the alt-right and should be barred from the political arena.

Ok go back a step here, we need to win back the goverment, right? Now what is an issue we can use to do that, well economic justice issues is polling well and it is a progressive position, you don't disagree with taxing the rich to provide services and lower taxes on the poor, do you? We can get the most votes from everyone, especially the demographic we lost, on an economic justice platform, once we get back the goverment then we can make laws that incentivize and punish employers that don't hire blacks and banks that don't give loans to blacks, we can even hide such systems being claimed as anti-white by simply targeting the poor, helping former convicts, helping single parents, helping poor parents, who are disproportionately nonwhite or female.

But instead if we say "check your cis white male privelege" and pander directly to just minorities, then we lose, as we did with Hillary Clinton.

How is addressing racial inequality and sexism and misogyny "pandering directly to just minorities"? Because you cannot do both? What is it that you think that addressing bigotry and sexism that is resulting in minorities and women not being equal to white males, is somehow "pandering directly to just minorities" or somehow or other taking something away from white males? You do realise that addressing only 'white male' issues and ignoring everything else, is the problem that minorities and women face, right? That this expectation that they should just vote for you while you completely ignore them, that patting them on the head with platitudes of 'just vote for us and we'll fix it for you, even though we have no intention of addressing your concern until you vote for us' is just insulting and no voter in their right mind would vote for it because you are essentially treating minorities and women like they are children and telling them that what matters to them, what is affecting them is not as important as what affects 'white males'.. You do get this, yes?

You will never win back the Government if you fail to recognise that women and minorities are human beings worthy of equal rights and protection in the United States. Bernie Sanders appealed solely to white voters, and minorities did not vote for him as a voting block. Hillary Clinton appealed solely to white voters when she went up against Obama, and tried to win their vote and minorities voted en masse for Obama. Bernie Sanders attempted to do what you say the Democrats should be doing.. Appealing to and pandering to the voters who voted for Trump. And he didn't make it past the primary. Why? Because a larger portion of women and minorities supported Clinton. Why? Because Sanders utterly failed to address what causes inequality when going on and on about how he was going to fix the economy. Bernie Sanders expected that minorities would just fall in line, without actually addressing what was directly affecting them.

Democrats cannot win any election without the support of minorities. And if you think pandering to racist white voters who supported Trump because of "the wall", because 'he's a man', because he speaks just like they do, will get you to win back the Government, then you are delusional, because Democrats need the support of minorities and minorities will not support Democrats if they fail to address the systematic and entrenched racism and bigotry that sees them being shot by police, denied housing and access to a better education, denied employment, denied even access to banks for loans, supermarket and fresh food (food deserts affect minorities primarily), etc. Sanders failed to address these very important issues and you are whining that addressing these issues somehow or other will take things from white people.. You will not win and frankly you will not deserve to win if you cannot recognise that women, minorities and LGBT are human beings worthy of their fundamental human rights equal to that of white people.

I tell them "your unemployed, ok here is a job, you need a home, here is a home, you need some money, here is some money"

So you think they should vote for you, because you'd make a great king... Without actually addressing what is affecting them. Because they are like children who will just vote for you because you promise to give them stuff.. Reading your responses is like watching a Trump rally. No substance, just empty promises and pandering.

Jews have disproportional holdings in banking, law, politics, science, media, I'm just pointing out what exist in society. I'm not blaming jews

This is getting pathetic and has gone beyond being farcical.

When you say blacks and women come first, that their issues are somehow the foundation of all oppression, that insults white males who are poor, have shit jobs and little education, you are ignoring a very large demographic, one that has particular power thanks to the electoral college, and frankly yes you are blaming them if indirectly.

Come first? What the fuck are you even on about now?

I have been saying that blacks and women should be equal.

You are the one pitching a fit because you somehow think that even recognising minorities and women as human beings worthy of equal rights somehow detracts 'something something' from white men.

Oh no I'm a dirty jew, oh I am so ashamed.

You do realise that you are just making yourself look like you are even more pathetic, right? That Jew baiting is not a winning strategy and just makes you look like an even bigger right wing bigot, yes?

 

[douwd20]

The republican base was not what won Trump the election, it was obama to trump voters: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html

Let's be clear Hillary really won the election by 2 million votes. She lost the trophy thanks to the Electoral College and it's nod to slavery.

 

[pjdude1219]

Truth is truth, if it makes me a dick and raging asshole to point that out so be it.

no you going out of your way to be a dick and raging asshole is what makes you a dick and raging asshole. you have zero interest in a good faith debate and anything meaningful. you literally spent the last 10 months trying to stroke you ego. nothing you've done has been productive in any manner.

also you have been saying anything thats true. you have been attaching your fantasies to reality and calling it the truth but you are nowhere near the truth.

 

[birch]

#supremacism | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Content Warning: Click it to stick it in your breakfast burrito.​

If I say you're hilarious, or adorable or whatever, when you do that, then I am lying, because, really, I mean, to the one, it's not funny, while, to the other, you're so goddamn bad at it, okay, yeah, it looks like you're aiming for farce.

Consider the bit where you ask↑, "Are women a hive mind to you?" This was a bizarre non sequitur derived from your pretense of ignorance↑. You asked, "What narrative?" after using right-wing lexicon and argumentative structure to dismiss the value of direct action; and as you were told↑ at the time:

Seriously, you don't get to just stop making sense every time you're afraid to answer. When you let the supremacists tell us what the problem is? When you can only describe circumstances according to conservative myth? What narrative? And, you know, consider women, for instance. For once. Why would women take your advice when you won't listen to what they're telling you? And you can't even explain to them why they should harm themselves in no small part because you don't respect them enough to bother trying.​

So you responded to that discussion about narrative by invoking a non sequitur in order to pretend women are apparently not capable of attending more than one of their human needs at once, a pretense so utterly stupid that it draws the obvious question↑—"Because both cannot be addressed?"—and now we are witness to hangnail prioritization↑—

(You're aware, of course, that catcalling and street harassment do, in fact, end up costing lives? But why worry about that, right? They're just women, and we need to be talking about "people", right? And you can resent such needling all you want except why would you keep exposing yourself to the criticism? But you don't get to dismiss lethal bigotry as a hangnail, as a general principle, and expect to be taken seriously. Neither do you get to keep pretending any sort of liberal credential; your behavior is easily identified as wannabe agent-provocateurism.)​

—and insupportable rubber-glue juvenilia:

And your not listening to men, at all. Again who is president right now? Do you understand what happens yet when you can't priorities problems? Problem number 1: WE DO NOT CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT! Everything else is secondary right now, because we lack the ability to do anything, other then bitch and whine.​

Then stop the bitching and whining.

You have no context, no basis whatsoever for your rubber-glue outburst that "your not listening to men, at all". Honestly, it's not clever. Really, I promise. It never has been; we didn't just make up the not-clever rule for you.

You need more than fury and fallacy.

But that rubber-glue bitchwine now-more-than-ever change of subject is also part of the setup for your tumble into Jew-baiting; as you continued:

The millions of poor white male, heck even poor white females are not dissuaded from the left because of their "delicate sensibilities" they are dissuaded because they prioritize their lack of jobs, their student loans, their lack of homes, their lack of healthcare, their lack of a future over microaggressions, transgender bathrooms and sexist office temperatures. They do this because they are sane humans, which your either not or your so privileged in your life that you actually put such problems as worse then bills, food, home, etc.​

And it was this word salad that drew a particular response↑ from Bells:

Again, if you cannot see that women, minorities and LGBT are human beings worthy of equal rights, you frankly do not deserve to win.​

And also, you know, maybe if you were capable of explaining ridiculous phrases like, "their lack of a future over microagressions", it wouldn't seem so much like your faux-liberal posture intends to "keep kowtowing to the right". Seriously, if you were able to make sense outside the alt-right, maybe your fake liberal poseur routine wouldn't seem quite so fake or, you know, conservative.

But, clearly the hit pissed you off, because you lost your Godwin plot:

• "So I could be a demon from hell for it is matters, go one, call me a nazi next, does not change the fact I'm right and you are what has destroyed the left and given us a pig boar for president." (#256↑)

• "This is an ad hominium you have construct, it is a complete lie and is total slander. I might as well say you hate jews and want to murder jews, that would be the same level of disgusting claim." (ibid)

• "Honestly I laughed at this comment from you. Why do you hate jews so much Bells? Look at your self just shivering with rage screaming 'why are you not in a gas chamber!?!?'" (ibid)

• "1. I do not care what you see me as, I know what I am, and ever time you claim I am something I'm not, I chuckle. You might as well be calling me a dirty scheming grubby jew." (#266↑)

• "Yes yes I'm a dirty jew, so dirty, anyways about those questions ... Is everyone that disagrees with you a right wing nazi?" (#274↑)

• "So is your counter argument is that this person does not believe in equality? You have no counter argument to their argument, you just imply they are a racist, sexist, homophobe, nazi, what ever label you want." (#292↑)

• "... do you relies 'the Jews are behind it' is as just a crazy as what you said? Only Alex Jone's level reptilians and/or inter-dimensional demons would be more crazy." (#294↑)

• "If sexism and racism lead to classicism then how is there classicism in racially homogeneous countries, let me guess it is the sexism somehow? Might as well be the Jews, or the Illuminati, or the reptilians." (#302↑)

• "Oh your going to imply I'm anti-semitic now?" (#308↑)

• "Jews have disproportional holdings in banking, law, politics, science, media, I'm just pointing out what exist in society. I'm not blaming jews" (ibid)

• "Oh no I'm a dirty jew, oh I am so ashamed." (ibid)​

Little bit desperate, there, ElectricFetus? Is there something you intend to accomplish by Jew-baiting?

†​

Update on edit: It occurrs to me that I can count back at least seven years↗ in which the right wing has had a difficult time deciding who's a Nazi and who's a Jew. I find it fascinating to have any reason to recall the point today. (5 Sept., 15.13)

Sexism is definitely one of the top problems and issues but it shouldnt be seen conflated to every issue of classism. Otherwise, sexism will be used as a pseudo fallacy by those who want to continue to perpetuate various areas of classism and bigotry.

Really, classism (as well as bigotry) is un-related or not exclusive to sexism but sexism needs to be addressed seriously as its own issue, not lumped in or will get even purposely lost in the fray and ignored especially by those who want to feign its non-existence.

Classism and bigotry is across all genders, race and creed. Men screw over other men, just as women screw over other women based on classism, bigotry, racism, prejudice etc. It happens all the time. The fact is just eliminating sexism does not guarantee or represent the magic bullet or cure of classism.

How would that work if your female boss happens to be a bigot, unfair or a bitch and you are of the same gender and maybe even harassing you, for whatever reason? Can you claim sexism? No, even if that may be the case or there is some element. There are people who are sexist toward their own gender just as to the opposite, but it tends to be more subtle or harder to prove. For instance, depending on who the person is and their internal values, a woman is just as capable of hindering and disempowering other or certain women just as men fuck over/oppress eachother for power. Conservative males tend to not be keen in support of liberal males etc. The conservative voting block is an obvious example, which includes both genders.

classism can be exercised by anyone. Sexism is one thats between genders. All areas and forms of it will have to be addressed for what they are and how they manifest.

What EF doesnt acknowledge is white males have and will screw over other men, including other white males. Do people really think someone that is the likes of trump really cares about the blue collar guy if he happens to be white? not really. Its all political.

 

[birch]

Otoh, the blindspot with racists amd bigots is the belief that the elimination of other races or the subjugation of women will equate to better advantages when thats not reality when that classism and bigotry still is in place. You can still be screwed but now it will just be your own race or gender to stick it to you. Conservative thinktank is oppressive amd topdown, no matter what. For the idiots, they are distracted by the game of playing one against the other. Mostly homogenious societies are an example of screwing over their own kind. Do chinese not screw over other chinese etc?

The selfishness of conservatives or those loyal to whoever or party that appeals to that bigotry blinds them to the fact, they are not trustworthy. The only true blue for all, including conservatives are, ironicly, liberals. Especially in the long run and for a better progressive society for all.

 

[iceaura]

↑

The republican base was not what won Trump the election, it was obama to trump voters: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html
Let's be clear Hillary really won the election by 2 million votes. She lost the trophy thanks to the Electoral College and it's nod to slavery.

3 million - or more, depending on how one estimates the illegitimately uncounted votes cast. A large winning margin.

But more important: This is dangerous. Repeating falsehoods and bs claims whose original role is to dominate discussion by repetition risks being mired in them.

There apparently were very few Obama-Trump voters, by careful analysis. Clinton did not lose Obama voters to Trump in significant numbers, and many other causes of lost votes were more significant. That link, for example, has been debunked as careless and poorly reasoned, and claims based on such carelessness should not be simply accepted as framing any part of a discussion.

Example, from a posted link:

When Richard Spencer, an originator of the term “alt-right,” discusses race as destiny, he is no different than liberals who have been articulating every aspect of identity, split into narrower and narrower niches, in precisely the same terms.

This is completely bullshit.
1) "Liberals" have been doing no such thing.
2) Intellectual breakdowns and academic analyses are mediated, politically. Spencer is doing politics, that's not "the same thing" as analysis.
3) Spencer's "discussion" of race (it's no such thing) builds on false claims of fact and event as well as invalid reasoning. It does not stand to reason. That's not "the same thing" as intellectually valid discussion based on true claims and historical event.
4) The terms are "precisely the same", when they actually are (seldom), because Spencer sometimes sees to that when he is lying and bullshittting. This is a feature of Spencer's bad faith, dishonesty, and propaganda techniques, not a property of "liberal" rhetoric.

And so forth.

So why the silly claim, so diligently repeated? Because the propagandists are shedding blame for Spencer, as they are for all his progenitors back to Nixon. They are spreading their shit around, so that nobody can tell where the smell came from.

What's missing, in this "both sides" campaign we see all around us now, is recognition of reality.

The Republican side, the source of Electric Fetus's posting here, is lies and slanders and the special destruction of memory and reason we call "bullshit" - an expansion of bad faith. And it runs on repetition.