7 ms·

> The tone is that a racist demagogue who made up lies off the top of his head at every speech was found acceptable by (almost) a plurality of voters. The alte

> The tone is that a racist demagogue who made up lies off the top of his head at every speech was found acceptable by (almost) a plurality of voters. The alternative was what? A corrupt rich white woman who has been involved in politics since the 1970s, who has been behind the curve of history at almost every step (saying stuff like blacks are superpredators and video games caused Columbine and not getting behind gay marriage until a couple years ago). > The tone is that voters have been proven to be manipulable through fear to blame people of other races and nationalities for whatever economic conditions are unfavorable to them. The tone is that the truth and nuance of these issues are now irrelevant in elections. This has always happened. Why is it that when poor minorities vote for their economic well-being it is seen as progress but when poor white people do it it's seen as racism? > The tone is that serial bullying and abuse of women is not a disqualifier for what should be the most-respected office in the nation. Bill Clinton. Your concerns are heard, but they'd be a lot more believable if the person who didn't get elected was not the face of hypocrisy. I didn't vote for Trump. I just don't think simplifying an election about the economy into something about race or bigotry is acceptable. It's dishonest. The working class has been gutted for years because of neoconservative and neoliberal views. Surprise - the class of people most rejected who receive poor educations and don't have a window into the modern economy have some unfavorable views on some issues.

gdulli 10y ago
> Why is it that when poor minorities vote for their economic well-being it is seen as progress but when poor white people do it it's seen as racism? I don't have a problem with voting for or against a trade deal based on self-interest or interest in maximizing benefit for one's country. Dehumanizing people with a different skin color who are already citizens of your country (Gonzalo Curiel, Humayun Khan) and cultivating racism and xenophobia to win power is unconscionable. > Bill Clinton I'd like to think that if he had faced election after the Monica Lewinsky incident, he would have lost.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  As opposed to demonizing people for "clinging to their guns and religion" or calling people "deplorable"? It's the same thing. Both sides are engaging in this bigotry. You can't write off almost 50% of the electorate (Romney's 47% statement in 2012 and Clinton's deplorables comment) and expect anything but extremes. Both sides are doing it.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    I'm sure people didn't like being called deplorable. But they weren't called that for no reason. They weren't called that because they were simply supporting a Republican. They weren't called that for supporting Romney or McCain. Trump is a cancer of a person and supporting a man and the policies of a man who's openly transitioning our election system to one based on lies and racist demagoguery is simply, demonstrably deplorable. Relative to values like truth and tolerance that that we should share/ostensibly share. Of course it was careless of Clinton to get caught saying it, but the deplorable behavior had to exist before she had a reason to comment on it.
    - hga 10y ago
      I didn't like being called irredeemable as part of her "basket of deplorables" who "are not America". That's calling for my liquidation, a major thing from the cultural Baby Boom she belongs to. And she didn't "get caught saying it", that was part of a prepared speech, and one she only later said she "regretted" saying, not that she was wrong about it. You'll have to forgive me if my response to this is less than completely polite....
      - gdulli 10y ago
        > I didn't like being called irredeemable as part of her "basket of deplorables" who "are not America". Xenophobia, prejudice, and intolerance aren't what Clinton sees as America. If those things are what you see as America, that's your right. In which case there's an irreconcilable gap between you and Clinton and you need to accept that she's going to consider you as standing outside of those values that she has always taken for granted as broadly accepted. Be the thing you want others to see you as, or else accept the consequences of being seen a different way. Don't be surprised or complain about it.
hamax 10y ago
> not getting behind gay marriage until a couple years ago And when did Trump get behind gay marriage? How is that a point against Hillary? > saying stuff like blacks are superpredators Thank god she never said that.
- hga 10y ago
  The Internet never forgets: https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+blacks+superpredators https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+blacks+superpredator...
  - hamax 10y ago
    Please, go find me the exact quote. This is the kind of fake news the whole Trump campaign was built on. Calling violent gangs super-predators is not the same as calling blacks super-predators. Not even a bit.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      And if she was referring to gangs of minority kids (as she was in context) is it at least a bit like it? "But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs," Hillary Clinton said in a C-SPAN video clip. "Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel." Bernie seemed to think so: When Sanders was asked by debate moderator why he called out Bill Clinton out for his defense of Clinton’s use of the term "superpredator," Sanders responded, "Because it was a racist term, and everyone knew it was a racist term."
      - hamax 10y ago
        If she would call nazis super predators no one would imply she's bigoted against whites. To be fair. I agree she could and should have used better phrasing. I can also understand people like Sanders for criticise her. Maybe she even was bigoted 20 years age when she said that, or maybe she still is. But you have to interpret her words extremely uncharitably to infer that. Here we are trying to figure out if here comments about gangs could be problematic while comparing her to Trump, who said this about mexican immigrants, not just mexican gangs: "They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people!".
ewzimm 10y ago
This is the biggest irony of the article. Everyone in the establishment media is trying to figure out how Trump won without their endorsement without addressing the actual issues voters cared about. It even says in this article that people suspect that the media is biased and consolidated, implies that it's actually objective and fact checking, while also acknowledging that every editorial board supported Clinton and implied that the only reason someone would vote for Trump is racism and sexism. It questions whether Facebook is too powerful while acknowledging that the actual source of information on Facebook is people's peers. What it's really questioning is whether people are too empowered to talk to each other rather than listening to authoritative sources. Michael Moore is the liberal source that I've seen most quoted by Trump supporters. He says the reason people voted for Trump is that they are sick of a neoliberal agenda which focuses on intervention in foreign wars and Free Trade agreements which seem to be little more than corporate protectionism. They're sick of policies which have been proven to increase wealth inequality rather than enrich lower and middle class workers. They're sick of economic uncertainty in a time of unprecedented productivity. Newspapers gloss over this and focus on racial conflict, which is a real problem that needs to be addressed, but it's not the whole story, and editorial boards which generally agree with neoliberalism are unwilling to question it with any depth.
- hiou 10y ago
  The reason many people, including myself, look to xenophobia as one of the driving forces in the election is because I'm fairly certain Donald Trump would struggle to place somewhere like Belgium on the map and likely can't list the countries that border Syria. He is so grossly unqualified for the position that it is difficult for me to understand what other reason someone would chose to vote for him. Clinton was a poor choice for sure but Trump doesn't even pass the phone screen of the basic necessary knowledge for the position. Edit: I should clarify that the point of my comment is not to reopen the debate about Trump as opposed to give some context as to why many people look to those specific issues as a driver of his election.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Huh, so obviously highschool students and college students who can't place countries on a map can't do so because they are xenophobes. That's a very interesting conclusion to make.

gdulli 10y ago

> Why is it that when poor minorities vote for their economic well-being it is seen as progress but when poor white people do it it's seen as racism? I don't have a problem with voting for or against a trade deal based on self-interest or interest in maximizing benefit for one's country. Dehumanizing people with a different skin color who are already citizens of your country (Gonzalo Curiel, Humayun Khan) and cultivating racism and xenophobia to win power is unconscionable. > Bill Clinton I'd like to think that if he had faced election after the Monica Lewinsky incident, he would have lost.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
As opposed to demonizing people for "clinging to their guns and religion" or calling people "deplorable"? It's the same thing. Both sides are engaging in this bigotry. You can't write off almost 50% of the electorate (Romney's 47% statement in 2012 and Clinton's deplorables comment) and expect anything but extremes. Both sides are doing it.
- gdulli 10y ago
  I'm sure people didn't like being called deplorable. But they weren't called that for no reason. They weren't called that because they were simply supporting a Republican. They weren't called that for supporting Romney or McCain. Trump is a cancer of a person and supporting a man and the policies of a man who's openly transitioning our election system to one based on lies and racist demagoguery is simply, demonstrably deplorable. Relative to values like truth and tolerance that that we should share/ostensibly share. Of course it was careless of Clinton to get caught saying it, but the deplorable behavior had to exist before she had a reason to comment on it.
  - hga 10y ago
    I didn't like being called irredeemable as part of her "basket of deplorables" who "are not America". That's calling for my liquidation, a major thing from the cultural Baby Boom she belongs to. And she didn't "get caught saying it", that was part of a prepared speech, and one she only later said she "regretted" saying, not that she was wrong about it. You'll have to forgive me if my response to this is less than completely polite....
    - gdulli 10y ago
      > I didn't like being called irredeemable as part of her "basket of deplorables" who "are not America". Xenophobia, prejudice, and intolerance aren't what Clinton sees as America. If those things are what you see as America, that's your right. In which case there's an irreconcilable gap between you and Clinton and you need to accept that she's going to consider you as standing outside of those values that she has always taken for granted as broadly accepted. Be the thing you want others to see you as, or else accept the consequences of being seen a different way. Don't be surprised or complain about it.

hamax 10y ago

> not getting behind gay marriage until a couple years ago And when did Trump get behind gay marriage? How is that a point against Hillary? > saying stuff like blacks are superpredators Thank god she never said that.

hga 10y ago
The Internet never forgets: https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+blacks+superpredators https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+blacks+superpredator...
- hamax 10y ago
  Please, go find me the exact quote. This is the kind of fake news the whole Trump campaign was built on. Calling violent gangs super-predators is not the same as calling blacks super-predators. Not even a bit.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    And if she was referring to gangs of minority kids (as she was in context) is it at least a bit like it? "But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs," Hillary Clinton said in a C-SPAN video clip. "Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel." Bernie seemed to think so: When Sanders was asked by debate moderator why he called out Bill Clinton out for his defense of Clinton’s use of the term "superpredator," Sanders responded, "Because it was a racist term, and everyone knew it was a racist term."
    - hamax 10y ago
      If she would call nazis super predators no one would imply she's bigoted against whites. To be fair. I agree she could and should have used better phrasing. I can also understand people like Sanders for criticise her. Maybe she even was bigoted 20 years age when she said that, or maybe she still is. But you have to interpret her words extremely uncharitably to infer that. Here we are trying to figure out if here comments about gangs could be problematic while comparing her to Trump, who said this about mexican immigrants, not just mexican gangs: "They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people!".

ewzimm 10y ago

This is the biggest irony of the article. Everyone in the establishment media is trying to figure out how Trump won without their endorsement without addressing the actual issues voters cared about. It even says in this article that people suspect that the media is biased and consolidated, implies that it's actually objective and fact checking, while also acknowledging that every editorial board supported Clinton and implied that the only reason someone would vote for Trump is racism and sexism. It questions whether Facebook is too powerful while acknowledging that the actual source of information on Facebook is people's peers. What it's really questioning is whether people are too empowered to talk to each other rather than listening to authoritative sources. Michael Moore is the liberal source that I've seen most quoted by Trump supporters. He says the reason people voted for Trump is that they are sick of a neoliberal agenda which focuses on intervention in foreign wars and Free Trade agreements which seem to be little more than corporate protectionism. They're sick of policies which have been proven to increase wealth inequality rather than enrich lower and middle class workers. They're sick of economic uncertainty in a time of unprecedented productivity. Newspapers gloss over this and focus on racial conflict, which is a real problem that needs to be addressed, but it's not the whole story, and editorial boards which generally agree with neoliberalism are unwilling to question it with any depth.

hiou 10y ago
The reason many people, including myself, look to xenophobia as one of the driving forces in the election is because I'm fairly certain Donald Trump would struggle to place somewhere like Belgium on the map and likely can't list the countries that border Syria. He is so grossly unqualified for the position that it is difficult for me to understand what other reason someone would chose to vote for him. Clinton was a poor choice for sure but Trump doesn't even pass the phone screen of the basic necessary knowledge for the position. Edit: I should clarify that the point of my comment is not to reopen the debate about Trump as opposed to give some context as to why many people look to those specific issues as a driver of his election.
- mc32 10y ago
  Huh, so obviously highschool students and college students who can't place countries on a map can't do so because they are xenophobes. That's a very interesting conclusion to make.