Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[薔薇語]

The SPLC is referring to their own data, not the FBI's.

So your reference was of their statements from your earlier link. My second post to you address that.

[TheDarkness]

Statistically speaking, the experts seem to agree that the trend that is most likely is more hate crimes, especially in relations to muslims, than in normal years, just as followed Brexit.

 

No one is saying that the meanings of the data is perfectly clear, but that there is some reason to suspect that heated rhetoric plays a role, and will play a role.

 

Now, in regards to how people should respond, I follow the view that the response to appointing people to the cabinet who refer to actual white nationalists as people they greatly admire(as Bannon did in regards to Spencer) should be loud, decisive, ruthless, and without end until such people are moved far away from anything resembling state power. One can either be my president, or court white nationalists, never both, and no reasonable person should expect differently from anyone who is not a racist.

 

It is important to keep in mind that the historical point of hate crimes was terrorism and disenfranchisement. It has often been a political tool against minorities and those who support them, and the effects sought are usually beyond the effect to one individual. In areas with very small numbers of minorities, it can be devastating to not just the individuals it happens to, but anyone who is a minority in that area, and I have seen more than enough small towns where this still occurs to consider it a powder keg for any presidential candidate to EVER court white nationalism.

 

In regards to the data, these are small numbers, but their fluctuations are not that erratic that the 67% increase can be looked on as at all normal. Looking through the last five years, some of the main issues that come up in the data are linked to the data being split up in different ways(the addition of gender nonconformity as a category, sikh as a category, etc). Some other issues and patterns arise as one examines the quarterly information by state.

 

If one assumes one cause, I would say it's fair to figure in others. For example, public response to a terrorist attack, and to Brexit, could be factors. Further, whether it is a red state or blue state, given rhetoric, could influence what the response to the wall and Trump's rhetoric could result in as far as how Hispanics are treated. What size cities are present.

 

One of the stats I intend to look at is hate crimes against hispanics in different areas. Did the numbers fluctuate in different ways by region, etc.

 

However, to claim the rhetoric likely has no effect is hard to justify. The rhetoric got him elected. Literally no moderate Republican I know voted for him. More than a few in the religious right labelled him sent from God. Donald Trump.

 

Rhetoric has an effect on people closer to normal than the dim bulbs and hypocritical losers who do hate crimes. On the latter group, rhetoric is all they listen to when it comes to race. It is their bread and butter, and it has been many, many decades since their rhetoric was so involved in national politics.

 

Given that, before the election was over, talk among Trump supporters was already rife with talk of something beyond simple demonstrations, and that was the more rank and file supporters, it is highly unlikely that those who wish or might be influenced to take part in hate crimes against minorities are not in any way emboldened, when literally the entire white nationalist presence on the internet is well aware of Trump's courting of the alt-right, was in love with him at the talk of the wall, and was absolutely drooling at the muslim ban. I mean, he tweeted messages from white nationalists.

 

It is not hysterics. I am not saying it is the next third reich, but it will not be not because of Trump, unless he dumps them fast and hard, and his cabinet picks suggest he won't.

 

So, four more years of obstruction it is. Not what the country needed, but better than the alternative.

[薔薇語]

Literally no moderate Republican I know voted for him. More than a few in the religious right labelled him sent from God. Donald Trump.

To be a bit trite: the plural of anecdote is not data. This election didn't feature any particular major shift in substantive voting demographics for the Republican party***. Whites, white women, blacks, various age groups, local population, etc. The single largest shift (in raw numbers) was a one point shift between men and women (men increased by 1 percent form last time and women decreased by 1). But even that data point is incapable of expressing what happened because the women who did vote voted Republican at a lower rate. And while men increased in support for the Republican party by 1 percent, that is probably more a reflection of the slight uptick of Black and Latino support for the Republican party. 

 

All in all, President Elect Trump gained an extremely comparable vote share as Gov. Romney in terms of demographics and raw numbers. If your friends voted for Gov. Romney, they likely voted for P.E. Trump but don't want to tell you for, well, obvious reasons. 

 

Soar. 

 

***Note, this is limited to the Republican party. The Democratic Party saw some major shifts - hence why they lost. But those shifts were not to the Republican party. 

[megaplayboy]

The final demographics for non-white Trump voters may be lower than the exits indicated. Latin Dynamics did a massive survey prior to the election and came up with significantly lower numbers for Latino support for Trump. They do much more extensive bilingual polling. Their numbers suggest something closer to 18% latino support for Trump, rather than the 28% indicated by the exit polls. There's a more extensive census survey that takes place months from now, so we should have a better idea by then. But I caution against taking the exit poll numbers as gospel truth.

[薔薇語]

I was unaware of that. It is a good point that exit polls aren't gospel, however they are the best data we have available. Now, if I recall correctly, pre-election polling suggested something closer to that 18-20% value. So that makes me wonder if the current polls are wrong and yet somehow the earlier ones were right or if there is other wonkiness at play. Presumably the polling pre-election and exit polls operated under the same standards. 

One bit of caution I do actually have with this new possible readjustment downward in the Latino vote is that it breaks with essentially every other trend we see in the data. In particular, every other racial group voted for President Elect trump in a consistent way from 2012 with similar decreases in Democratic support and rise in third party support. If the Latino vote dropped by some 10 points, that would suggest their community would be the only one that changed and, unless those ten points are transferred to third parties (extremely unlikely) the only group that increased in support for the Democratic party. While not impossible by any stretch, rather odd given the over all patterns. 

Soar. 

[Ternaugh]

I was unaware of that. It is a good point that exit polls aren't gospel, however they are the best data we have available. Now, if I recall correctly, pre-election polling suggested something closer to that 18-20% value. So that makes me wonder if the current polls are wrong and yet somehow the earlier ones were right or if there is other wonkiness at play. Presumably the polling pre-election and exit polls operated under the same standards. 

 

One bit of caution I do actually have with this new possible readjustment downward in the Latino vote is that it breaks with essentially every other trend we see in the data. In particular, every other racial group voted for President Elect trump in a consistent way from 2012 with similar decreases in Democratic support and rise in third party support. If the Latino vote dropped by some 10 points, that would suggest their community would be the only one that changed and, unless those ten points are transferred to third parties (extremely unlikely) the only group that increased in support for the Democratic party. While not impossible by any stretch, rather odd given the over all patterns. 

 

Soar. 

 

Please remember, many of the areas with high concentrations of Latino voters did break for Hillary. It's one of the problems with conflating national polls vs local.

[薔薇語]

Please remember, many of the areas with high concentrations of Latino voters did break for Hillary. It's one of the problems with conflating national polls vs local.

Yes, presumably that it so. But I assumed Mega's point referenced nation exit polls and not state or local ones. And if so, that would indicate a break with the national results for other groups. So, apples to apples it seems to me. But again, there is nothing sacrosanct about the data. If it is true that he only pulled in 18% and not 29, then that is the real data; trend be damned. But before accepting it off hand a quick reality check to see if it jives with other data points is a good practice.

 

Soar.

[Doc Shadow]

This pretty much says it for me.

 

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1315508435208874/

[Pattern Ghost]

This pretty much says it for me.

 

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1315508435208874/

 

Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Mexicans are murderers and rapists. That lady would want us to hold these things true (and I do). But she sits there calling all Trump voters racists and homophobes. That's just a little hypocritical.

 

Both sides ran their campaigns based on anger, fear and aggression. Let's hope the next two elections aren't also sponsored by the Dark Side.

[Old Man]

 But she sits there calling all Trump voters racists and homophobes. That's just a little hypocritical.

 

Does voting for a racist make you a racist?

 

The best analogy I've come across so far is the Showtime one.  Suppose you're looking to subscribe to HBO because you really want Game of Thrones.  But the only HBO package comes with Showtime.  You may not care about Showtime, you may actively hate Showtime, but you've just got to have Game of Thrones, so you sign up.  Are you now a Showtime subscriber?  Would you still have signed up if it meant the little girl next door had to have Showtime playing on a TV in her bedroom 24/7?

 

I'm willing to give some Trump voters the benefit of the doubt, but rest assured there are many raised eyebrows among those of us with discrimination or internments in our family histories.

[薔薇語]

I think the problem with such analogies is two fold: they are overly simplistic and "othering", and they are clearly politically biased as people don't dare think about those implications when put against their candidate. Senator Obama (08) thought marriage should have been between 1 man and 1 woman. Does voting for him mean you are homophobic? No. Secretary Clinton has supported our surveillance state - does voting for her mean that Democratic voters support big-brother? No. She has supported bombing tactics that just deem all 14 boys in Yemen killed terrorists and has killed countless innocent families. Does voting for Sec. Clinton mean you support these bombing runs that murder children? No. Politics is a much more complicated issue than the above. These candidates also supported many other issues that were given more appeal to individual voters. And slinging around these hasty generalizations that divide people doesn't serve anyone but your own catharsis. 

 

Soar. 

[Old Man]

On the contrary, such analogies are the best way to explain to Trump voters why some people equate their votes with racism, by taking the charged aspects of the situation out of the analysis.  I see many Trump voters loudly trying to convince themselves that they didn't just support racism by shouting "I'm not racist!" at the top of their lungs.  Well, as with many things, there are degrees of racism, and while they may not be tying nooses they're looking the other way at best.  I'd have a lot more respect for them if they'd man up and own their vote, the way I knowingly voted for (and thereby supported) homophobia, surveillance states, and hawkish foreign policy in the past. 

 

Not that any of those issues, frankly, carry the weight that racism does, given our country's history.  There is no clearer sign that the GOP has no moral compass than white nationalists in the White House.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'm willing to give some Trump voters the benefit of the doubt, but rest assured there are many raised eyebrows among those of us with discrimination or internments in our family histories.

 

I think there's a substantive difference between raised eyebrows and strident accusations. The latter is simply rolling around in the mud with the pig. I see that as less productive.

[megaplayboy]

I have no problem engaging with the argument that the economic anxieties of the white working class have been neglected, that rural whites have been neglected, and that they feel cheated and robbed of the American dream by globalism and bad trade deals. That said, I don't think it's fair to expect people in one bubble(urban America, nonwhite America) to engage the concerns of the other bubble(rural America, white America) without a sense of reciprocity. Trump's campaign did deal with economic anxiety, but it also played to the white working class' cultural grievances and racial animus. I don't think one can dismiss that simply by saying "well, a lot of people voted for Trump for economic reasons". You also have to engage with the other, uglier stuff, imho. Because there's a great deal of concern about how much said Kulturkampf and racial animus will feature in the new administration. Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions are not exactly reassuring picks for non-white and urban America.

[Pattern Ghost]

Mega, that was a thoughtful and reasoned post. It wasn't an emotional, accusatory rant, like the video linked.

 

As for the idea that there's a certain level of guilt by association when someone votes for a candidate running on a racist platform who then selects racist appointees . . . I agree. There's a certain level of guilt by association, even if the voters were just holding their nose and voting because of Trump's promises to protect working class jobs, or whatever other rationale they used. But to do well in the mid term elections and to do well in 2020, some of those people will likely need to be won over.

[megaplayboy]

Mega, that was a thoughtful and reasoned post. It wasn't an emotional, accusatory rant, like the video linked.

 

As for the idea that there's a certain level of guilt by association when someone votes for a candidate running on a racist platform who then selects racist appointees . . . I agree. There's a certain level of guilt by association, even if the voters were just holding their nose and voting because of Trump's promises to protect working class jobs, or whatever other rationale they used. But to do well in the mid term elections and to do well in 2020, some of those people will likely need to be won over.

I think that, as one gets older, one becomes aware that elections are choices, and choices have consequences. Most choices IRL have "side effects" or adverse/unintended consequences. So, I think a fairer characterization might be that people who voted for Trump for reasons unrelated to racial animus did so either in disregard/indifference to the potential adverse effects upon citizens who didn't look like them, or in ignorance of those potential adverse effects. There certainly wasn't much of substance for Trump voters to hang their hats on in reassurance that non-white citizens' needs and concerns would be well taken care of in his administration. "What the hell do you have to lose?" is perhaps the worst sales pitch ever.

[Pattern Ghost]

I think that's true to a great degree. I'm sure if you rounded up a bunch of Trump voters whose primary concerns weren't the wall or Muslim immigration and asked them what the alt-right and white nationalism are . . .  you'd get a lot of blank stares.

 

 

 

"What the hell do you have to lose?" is perhaps the worst sales pitch ever.

 

Apparently, it's the second worst.

[megaplayboy]

Ouch!

 

Where I think Clinton was right about the "basket of deplorables" was the composition of the audiences at his rallies. I think the alt-right crowd was overrepresented there, due to their high enthusiasm for Trump's perceived(and actual) message. So people would see the rallies on tv and get Riefenstahl flashbacks.

[megaplayboy]

 

These lunatics met in DC this past weekend. Sure, there's only 200 at the meeting, but there are tens of thousands of like-minded individuals around the country. This is NOT a group that we want to feel particularly empowered by recent political events.

[Badger]

I have no problem engaging with the argument that the economic anxieties of the white working class have been neglected, that rural whites have been neglected, and that they feel cheated and robbed of the American dream by globalism and bad trade deals. That said, I don't think it's fair to expect people in one bubble(urban America, nonwhite America) to engage the concerns of the other bubble(rural America, white America) without a sense of reciprocity. Trump's campaign did deal with economic anxiety, but it also played to the white working class' cultural grievances and racial animus. I don't think one can dismiss that simply by saying "well, a lot of people voted for Trump for economic reasons". You also have to engage with the other, uglier stuff, imho. Because there's a great deal of concern about how much said Kulturkampf and racial animus will feature in the new administration. Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions are not exactly reassuring picks for non-white and urban America.

 

Why should there be reciprocity?  From a rural perspective, practically every issue, rightly or wrongly, already is catered to needs/desires of urban areas.  You're not wrong, but the other side has to come in with that same sense of reciprocity.   (note: I also assume the urban-nonwhite/rural-white you are using as 2 separate groups, because quite a few black people are also of rural areas).   

[Badger]

Ouch!

 

Where I think Clinton was right about the "basket of deplorables" was the composition of the audiences at his rallies. I think the alt-right crowd was overrepresented there, due to their high enthusiasm for Trump's perceived(and actual) message. So people would see the rallies on tv and get Riefenstahl flashbacks.

 

Unfortunately, for her, they saw flashbacks of Obama's "clinging to God and guns" remark.

[薔薇語]

Time for some comedy in our politics. 

 

Soar. 

[Twilight]

I'm just gonna leave this link here.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gxp6gzKvXk

[Sociotard]

How is that I really don't like Donald Trump and wish he'd lost, but now I dislike this Randy Rainbow even more? Good singing voice, not nice.

[Netzilla]

I can only hope this actually gets carried out:

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/robert-reichs-8-point-plan-for-a-new-democratic-party-w451713