Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

This might be difficult for some to take, but I do think some of the "hidden vote" that the polls missed, it has occurred to me where it came from.

As it happens the statistics show there was no hidden vote--GOP voters turned out in about the same numbers this year as in 2012. Dem voters stayed home, though--about 10% less turnout than four years ago. There's your margin right there.

 

So I don't really think it's that people's fee-fees were hurt over being called racist, so much as an extremely ugly campaign with a Democratic candidate who was admittedly short on personality.

 

As an aside, I totally understand that white conservatives are not necessarily racist, they just vote for racist candidates and policies. It's totally different.

[Starlord]

This is a cross posting from my Facebook.

 

"People are already calling for the President Elect's impeachment.

 

Maybe it says France on his birth certificate? 

[TheDarkness]

TheDarkness:

 

People fling around the term white nationalist rather brazenly these days. But since you are stating there are self professed WN in Trumps campaign (not just loosely associated like David Duke), I need to know who this person is. I know at least one person involved who calls himself a big alt-righter and has had to rebuff a few dishonest jounalists who imply he is a WN. The only actual WN I know to have been associated with the campaign was a delegate who was promptly removed when it was discovered by the campaign. Hardly a scandal.

 

Soar.

Alt-right is white nationalist. The people who aren't are the fringe. This is fairly well established. Brietbart is the self proclaimed media for the alt-right.

 

Honestly, there is no going into alt-right venues without recognizing that all but the fringe are self-proclaimed white nationalists, and the fringe is apparently okay with that. Further, Trump was quoting white nationalists on Twitter. And never seemed to have any problem with a major part of his activities on twitter getting huge support from alt-right members who were not shy about their white nationalism.

 

Steven Bannon. who of course worked for Trump during the election, as head of brietbart, according to this article by someone that knew him, specifically courted the white nationalist alt-right and made brietbart its voice:

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-know-trumps-new-campaign-chairman-steve-bannon-ben-shapiro#

 

Now, the person who you say was 'dishonestly' painted as a white supremacist, I suspect you are talking about is Milo Yiannapoulis. One of the writers of this article:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

 

Large sections of that article, in which the authors are talking about what they consider true versus describing the alt-right movement, but why they think the alt-right movement is right, are flat out white nationalism. They go further to split hairs and subdivide the group in ways they are NOT subdivided in online environments at all. They go to great lengths to say, we think nazis are LARPers, while supporting every pro-white argument of nazis in the rest of the argument, saved dressing like them.

 

Here's what they have to say about 'natural conservatives', which, in the article, seems to be what he considers the best of the movement, the goal state almost like a 'clear' to a scientologist.

 

"Their goal is a new consensus, where liberals compromise or at least allow conservative areas of their countries to reject the status quo on race, immigration and gender."

 

Note the race in there? That IS the beginning, end, and middle of the charter of pretty much all white nationalist movements. They always say, hey, this other group can go to their own place, and we get our own place, really, it's only functionally the same as racism, it's not really racism.

 

He follows this by explaining that that's a reasonable request, and only if they DON'T get it, well then, the nazis can do it their way. Seriously, that's what the article says in this section, if(and only if, so nice of them) liberals and conservatives don't yield territory where the natural conservatives can then "reject the status quo on race, immigration, and gender", well then, only then do the nazis get to gas everyone.

 

This is the part of the group that he speaks most admiringly of, in his own words. He has been accused of being supportive of white nationalism, he denies it, but in that article, there's hardly an element of white nationalism that he doesn't defend as a natural state, even if he dances around it a lot by saying, look, it's not real racism(never mind the nazis in reserve, they're just larpers), they just want the choice to not have black people, or hispanics, or allow anyone to move into their community that doesn't somehow fit their standard.

 

He is part of the alternative right, and he does describe white nationalism as a natural state of things where white people are involved.

 

We need not even discuss the ties between gamergate and alt-right's rise.

 

I know several people who spent extended times researching the alt-right in many online environments. Probably more time than half the people writing articles about them. One of these people is conservative, and he is disgusted by that last article's attempt to whitewash the stock white nationalism that he observed.

[薔薇語]

Alt-right is white nationalist.

Let me stop you here. You are now moving the goal posts. You said self proclaimed white nationalists. Actually, let me exactly quote you: "Trump utilized flat out white nationalists. Not as some side thing. These aren't people anyone needs to call racists, they call themselves it. Every day, Publicly."

 

I will note that saying "I am alt-right" may strike you as "I am a white nationalist" but this is where we are running into problems. Far too many people on the left seem to think even saying "I am conservative" is tantamount to saying "I am racist". You have gone from claiming that his staff publicly call themselves "white nationalists" to saying they used some code-word that you perceive to mean the same thing.

 

It is at this point that I should end this as I think we have reach a divide. It would seem you have vastly overstated your case and fallen into the exact broad-brush ad-homs that I was criticizing upthread.

 

Soar.

 

Edit- There was more to this post but I think it was more distracting than necessary. I have deleted it. 

[TheDarkness]

Let me stop you here. You are now moving the goal posts. You said self proclaimed white nationalists. Actually, let me exactly quote you: "Trump utilized flat out white nationalists. Not as some side thing. These aren't people anyone needs to call racists, they call themselves it. Every day, Publicly."

 

I will note that saying "I am alt-right" may strike you as "I am a white nationalist" but this is where we are running into problems. Far too many people on the left seem to think even saying "I am conservative" is tantamount to saying "I am racist". You have gone from claiming that his staff publicly call themselves "white nationalists" to saying they used some code-word that you perceive to mean the same thing.

 

It is at this point that I should end this as I think we have reach a divide. It would seem you have vastly overstated your case and fallen into the exact broad-brush ad-homs that I was criticizing upthread.

 

Soar.

 

Edit- There was more to this post but I think it was more distracting than necessary. I have deleted it. 

As a movement, alt-right is a white nationalist movement. Most attempts to claim otherwise have failed, because the overwhelming trend of the movement is white nationalism.

 

Steven Bannon not only provides their media outlet, but meets with avowed white nationalist leaders.

 

Your argument is semantical and wrong. The reasons are simple. Let's use the 'teach the controversy' movement. In Kansas and other places, the movement ostensibly was about fairness in schooling, not about creationism. But, in reality, it was about creationism. It's members were creationists, and no amount of rebranding changes this.

 

Alt-right is about white nationalism. Further, their major leaders and voices all also declare that they are white nationalist. A google search will show this. So this:

 

"You have gone from claiming that his staff publicly call themselves "white nationalists" to saying they used some code-word that you perceive to mean the same thing."

 

Is factually incorrect. The major leaders, the voices they most often quote and repeat, DO call themselves white nationalists. AND call themselves alt-right.

 

Further, those Breitbart columnists they most often quote who don't call themselves white nationalists, often spout the exact tenets of white nationalism. Alt-right members hate coded racism, so they will not follow a columnist who does not come out and say what they also think.

 

Finally, I'm assuming you mean Bannon(in reference to his(Trump's) staff, as the Twitter people probably weren't staff, but Trump still managed to quote avowed white nationalists on his Twitter as well as reap the rewards of the alt-right's twitter support, which only the most naive would consider accidental since Bannon, the head of Breitbart AND the provider of the media outlet for the alt-right, was a key staff member).

 

Bannon provides the alt-right's media outlet, outright stated that that was his intention, meets with people who the alt-right movement follow and whose arguments and quotes form the basis of a lot of what they do, and those people he meets with not only refer to themselves as white nationalists, but lead other organizations that are openly white nationalist organizations, blatantly white nationalist.

 

Now, a guy meets with white nationalist leaders, runs a media outlet that he outright states is aimed at a group that mostly follows what those white nationalist leaders have to say, in short, his entire success is based on the previous two points, I'm going to say that that person is not a good person at all. At best, he's an opportunist of the lowest moral order, and very possibly a racist. He is still functionally a racist, as he furthers the cause of white nationalists BY CHOICE.

 

Of course, that person's wretched ethics don't worry me, until they get some more influence. Say, ties with a presidential candidate. Or a president.

[薔薇語]

TheDarkness:

I have listened to a variety of people who are self proclaimed alt-righters and those called alt-righters by others. The grand majority of those I have heard are not WN. This of course does not mean there are none by any stretch. But I think it is not an appropriate way to characterize these folks. Broad-Brush strokes don't engender conversation. 

Soar. 

[TheDarkness]

TheDarkness:

 

I have listened to a variety of people who are self proclaimed alt-righters and those called alt-righters by others. The grand majority of those I have heard are not WN. This of course does not mean there are none by any stretch. But I think it is not an appropriate way to characterize these folks. Broad-Brush strokes don't engender conversation. 

 

Soar. 

I already said that there were some on the fringe who were not.

 

But seriously, the entire crop of people who are considered the voice of it are self-proclaimed white nationalists. You can look them up, it's practically without exception.

 

And the guys who think they aren't supporting THAT while calling people the n-word online(because the alt-right hates pc) are hopelessly naive and self-involved.

 

There is a point where you are asking for an unreasonable amount of evidence. Even if they are in the fringe, there is no way they could be in alt-right without daily seeing as much outright racist proclamations and white nationalism as a part of daily converse and debate as on Stormfront, because that's a constant. It's really not hard to find this out for yourself.

[TheDarkness]

Asking for proof that a group is predominantly racist whose accepted reading list is a list of people who run self proclaimed white nationalist organizations and write essays on white nationalism is perhaps a sign that you are kinder than me. I'll stop there.

 

I'm not part of any organization that reads any white nationalist articles for enlightenment. I'd imagine you're not either. My premise is that is because you're not a white nationalist, and I'll happily make the safe bet that someone who does read those articles is, and that seems a reasonable level of proof.

[薔薇語]

I guess we are not going to be coming together:

Calexit is a thing now. 

The spoiler below contains a link to two videos on youtube.  One is a CNN news report (perhaps you folks stateside already know this). The other is a youtube video of an assault on a President Elect Trump voter. 

Officers have been hurt in Oakland anti-trump protest

Guy is attacked for voting for President Elect Trump

Soar. 
 

[Pariah]

Secession.

 

Because that worked out so well the last time.

 

Personally, I'd expect to see a revolt inside California (northern vs. southern) before the state pulls put of the Union.

 

On the other hand, if California is going to leave anyway, maybe the rest of the country can at least get something out of it. Maybe we can sell it back to Mexico, or even to Spain.

 

How much could we get for California, do you think?

[薔薇語]

If we sell it to Spain, then a lot of Americans will finally be able to say they vacationed in Spain. That seems appealing. ^^ Plus, it means all those people who said they would move if President Elect Trump won would be able to keep their promises. Truly Americans are a giving people. 

That said, still a terrible idea. 

Soar. 

[Michael Hopcroft]

I'm still in shock.

 

But I'm starting to see why foreigners tend to think of Americans the way they do -- as self-glorifying hypocritical boors who believe in self-determination only when it benefits themselves. We like to believe we're above the petty feuds and hatreds of other nations, when the reality is that we are just as bad if not worse. Our "inclusive society" has been revealed to be a lie.

 

You know who is delighted at the election of Donald Trump? ISIS. Their chief recruiting point is that Americans (and Westerners in general) hate all Muslims with a white-hot passion that sears through our very vitals, and that acting against America is the most justifiable thing you can do if you're a Muslim. And here Americans elect a president who panders to an anti-Muslim sentiment that borders on the genocidal. (There actually are Americans who believe we should nuke Mecca -- not many, but they're there and they vote).

[薔薇語]

Something that has surprised me (and I do mean actually surprised me) is that the US econ and the USD haven't really suffered. I was expecting a Brexit like plunge following the announcement. Sure enough there was s dip but it recovered quite quickly. I just checked the Yen:USD exchange rate a moment ago and the USD has gotten even stronger since the election. This is actually bad news for me. I earn my salary in Yen (obviously) but send money back home all the time to pay off student loans. I was hoping for a 90-95 yen to the dollar rate for tomorrow since that is when I am sending my next installment of cash. Instead, it has gone from 104ish to 106ish this week. 

I have also checked the Dow Jones and it seems to be rather steady without any major swings. So on whole it seems the markets are able to hold back real shock. 

Soar. 

[tkdguy]

Secession.

 

Because that worked out so well the last time.

 

Personally, I'd expect to see a revolt inside California (northern vs. southern) before the state pulls put of the Union.

 

On the other hand, if California is going to leave anyway, maybe the rest of the country can at least get something out of it. Maybe we can sell it back to Mexico, or even to Spain.

 

How much could we get for California, do you think?

 

 

       

 

Amazing how people love to hate on California. I don't see that hate for New York, which is just as liberal.

 

But here's some info for you.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/california-gdp-crushes-everyone-2016-6

 

As for the military.

 

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/military-civilian-active-duty-employee-workforce-numbers-by-state.html

 

If we left, hypothetically speaking, of course, how well would you guys do?

[megaplayboy]

My issue at the moment is with calling 49 percent of the country racists. That is the key problem I have had with a lot of liberals (not all, I want to be careful how I put it, not to be like what has been done to me)

Great. What percentage are racists, in your view?

[Netzilla]

Well, I guess we've found one thing that California and Texas have in common:  They'll both threaten to take their ball and leave if they don't get their way.

[BoloOfEarth]

If California leaves, does that mean Trump has to build another wall?

[tkdguy]

Well, I guess we've found one thing that California and Texas have in common:  They'll both threaten to take their ball and leave if they don't get their way.

 

More often it's folks from other states who state their desire for California to secede, along with names like the "Leftist Coast." I've seen those comments in several boards I visit, and I'm sick of that crap.

[Nolgroth]

More often it's folks from other states who state their desire for California to secede, along with names like the "Leftist Coast." I've seen those comments in several boards I visit, and I'm sick of that crap.

 

That, at least, we can agree about.

[TheDarkness]

More often it's folks from other states who state their desire for California to secede, along with names like the "Leftist Coast." I've seen those comments in several boards I visit, and I'm sick of that crap.

Just to say, not everyone thinks this way. I grew up in Chicago, we like you folks. A little jealous of your winters, but we still like you.

 

I actually never heard this sentiment about California until I was in the Southwest.

 

Back in the day, there were only two states I avoided like the plague. Alabama and Oklahoma. I traveled a lot when I was young, and back in the day, if you had a long hair or a black person in your car in either of those states, apparently that was probably cause. Three times had to stop in Oklahoma, on three different trips, for a full car search because two of us in the band had long hair. Full searches, no probable cause, no violation.

 

Alabama, though, we had scary run-ins with the police, again, no cause for it except long hair and a black person. Full car search, and we were treated like the worst kind of scum, while our poor drummer was actually called 'boy'(he was black). It's a shame, because Alabama, as far as physical geography and many of its people, is pretty cool.

 

Met lots of great people in both places, but even they were like, yeah, there's no shortage of messed up people here living in the past.

 

To be clear, this was in the late eighties and early nineties.

[Hermit]

If I recall, Secession is Illegal because after the Civil war, the Supreme Court pretty much made it so, not with the proviso "If you want to secede because of slavery, well, you can't and it's bad and you should feel bad"  but more in a mafia "Once you're part of the family, you're always part of the family, capiche?" *Pops knuckles* way...  Okay, oversimplification... but Texas V White

So the only way California would get to legally secede is if congress let it, and frankly I see too many "Oh no, you're stuck in hell with the rest of us" to "Nope, we need your huge economy" 

[薔薇語]

Yeah, Texas v White essentially said unilateral secession by a state is not allowed. It didn't clarify if that meant Congress could do it unilaterally nor if it could be a bilateral choice. Just that unilateral state level secession is not possible. I still think the decision was a bad one but also think secession is stupid. 

Soar. 

[Hermit]

It's not necessarily better - but different. The last couple of decades Obama, W (to an extend) and Clinton has all been going a similar direction. He is different. We know (from that point of view) that what we had is slowly destroying my life, and Hillary is more of the same. Trump may not be any better, but at least he is different, and may make things better. Clinton would not for sure.

 

It's not so much that someone would want Trump, but the "brick thrown through the Washington establishment window"  that he represents.

 

These two article here and here really explain what I am talking about.

 

Okay, good articles. And I agree with a lot of them (which is probably why I think they're good ). I still think voting for Trump is like setting your house on fire and trying to collect the insurance money while you're still in the building but I certainly think many underestimated the desperation and outrage of many rural areas.

[tkdguy]

Let people vent; in the end that's all they're really doing, despite all that talk of secession. It's probably the only thing they can do now. As long as the protests stay peaceful, it's allowed by law.

 

Edit: All that anti-California talk isn't limited to election years, btw. In another site last year, people were discussing California's water crisis. Someone said we deserved it.

[BoloOfEarth]

Hmmmm...  but nothing about secession or separation of a non-state.  So if, say, the rest of the country wanted to build a wall around DC and kick 'em out, it would be perfectly legal...

 

(Hey, a guy can wish and dream, can't he?)