23 ms·

> In doing so, we should not demonize Trump voters—most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban. We need their eventual suppor

> In doing so, we should not demonize Trump voters—most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban. We need their eventual support in resisting actions like these, and we will not get it if we further isolate them. This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe, a moron, and not deserving of the franchise is not going to help anything. I didn't vote for Trump, but I do identify with some of the beliefs of those who did, and I can tell you that the rhetoric I'm hearing from many of the most vocal left is pushing the middle away.

beatpanda 10y ago
At what point do we start holding people accountable then? Trump, so far, has done exactly what he said he would do. Are we supposed to believe the people who voted for him simply weren't listening?
- burkaman 10y ago
  This is just a practicality argument. The people best placed to stop Trump are members of Congress, they need votes to stay in office, so we need to convince their voters. "Holding people accountable" isn't productive.
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    Boycotts are so effective many places make them illegal.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - a3n 10y ago
      One of LL Bean's board members thinks they're Unamerican and bullying.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      How do you boycott 60 million random people? The statement was about voters, not companies or other organizations.
      - RodericDay 10y ago
        seems to me like the comment was obviously about other big decision-makers
        ahartman00 10y ago
        would you want to lose your job because your boss said something they shouldnt have? or just something that ~50% of the population disagrees with? because the companies you are thinking about boycotting very likely have ~50% of their employees who have similar political positions to you. you're hurting them too.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ebola1717 10y ago
  Exaclty. Two of his biggest campaign promises were to build a wall to keep out Mexicans and to ban Muslims immigrants and refugees. The wall was one of his earliest campaign promises. I find it amazing that we're supposed to believe that the majority of Trump voters don't support at least one of these.
  - TuringNYC 10y ago
    Note, this is far broader than the refugee ban initially discussed. The ban truly is a Muslim ban. See quote from Reuters -- it bans permanent residents (i.e. greencard holders.) Note that permanent residents have to pay taxes even if living overseas! "It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-gree...
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      Too bad it doesn't ban individuals from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (because if it was about islamism, it should) Also, banning permanent residents is just ludicrous
    - finid 10y ago
      Muslims, then GC holders. Very soon, certain group of citizens will suffer the same fate. The prison walls are getting closer... By the time you're able to reach out and touch them, it'd be too late.
      - qazwsxedchac 10y ago
        Quite. Historically, countries which build walls don't do so to keep people out, but to keep them in.
      - TuringNYC 10y ago
        Well, that didnt take long. The definition is about to get broader, per WSJ: In a statement that the State Department is due to release, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the 90-day visa moratorium extends beyond just citizens of Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. It also applies to people who originally hail from those countries but are traveling on a passport issued by any other nation, the statement notes. That means Iraqis seeking to enter the U.S. on a British passport, for instance, would be barred, according to a U.S. official...." http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-visa-ban-also-applies-to-citizens-with-dual-nationality-state-department-says-1485628654?mod=e2fb http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-visa-ban-also-applies-to-c...
- DanBC 10y ago
  Here's what the current vice president said about banning Muslim immigrants last year. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/825371208355020801 https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/825371208355020801 "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the US are offensive and unconstitutional". Were people listening to that and hoping he'd reign in Trump? Was he lying when he said that? Trump just spews a bunch of stuff, some of it contradicts things he said earlier.
karmelapple 10y ago
It's all in a per-individual basis. I know many family members who specifically encouraged this ban. To them, I will now have to have the difficult conversation of how their desire for safety - at any cost to people unlike themselves - has unintended consequences. And I doubt it will be a pleasant conversation.
- bobzibub 10y ago
  I think that their desire for safety is not valid either. If an immigrant population believes they are unwanted by the majority, they'll tend to have "no skin in the game" for the society which they live and be much more open to political violence, crime etc. I believe if you compare (in this case) Muslim immigrants to England vs Muslim immigrants to Canada you'll see a difference in acceptance by the majority. Obviously Canada does not have universal acceptance of Muslim immigrants or any immigrants, but Canada does try to integrate immigrants more. I believe this is reflected in the number of terrorist attacks in those countries. If the Muslim immigrant minority (or any other) becomes more alienated, expect poor outcomes. Just like some poor Americans feel alienated by their country and some have fewer qualms about violent political acts. I'm a Canuck and so I may be biased. But if my understanding is incorrect, I'd be interested in hearing.
  - pm90 10y ago
    Canada does not have anywhere near the same amount of skin in global geopolitics as the US, consequently it has not pissed off large number of people in other countries making it less of a target for bad things. I do appreciate the immigration system in Canada and such, I'm only pointing out why the comparison b/w US and Canada is not correct in this particular matter.
  - leesalminen 10y ago
    "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." -Theodore Roosevelt 1907
danieldk 10y ago
This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you are (co-)responsible for the outcome. If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Would you rather have a job and a racist in power, or no job and a person isn't racist in power? I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    Minorities on average earn less, have less job security and despite this they utterly rejected Trump and his hateful platform. Trump voters also weren't the most economically desperate, those people voted Clinton. Trump did well among solidly middle class white people in rural areas. So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate.
    - einarvollset 10y ago
      Data does not support your opinion (yes I know Latinos is only one minority): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-better-with-latino-voters-than-romney-did/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-bett...
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        65 percent Clinton to 29 percent Trump is a pretty strong margin regardless of how it compares to the previous election.
      - gizmo 10y ago
gizmo 10y ago
Whether demonizing people who express hateful beliefs is good strategy is unclear at best. Demonizing people you want to find common ground with is unstrategic, certainly, but I think demonizing and shaming people who are spreading hate is necessary and effective, because it sends a clear signal that bigotry is intolerable. There is a huge difference between calling every single Trump voter a racist and bigot, and making the correct observation that Trump got elected on a platform of racism and bigotry. Some Trump voters chose him because of his racism and bigotry, and some Trump voters chose him despite of it. Regardless, there are no Trump voters for whom racism and bigotry are complete deal-breakers, as painful as that may be to acknowledge.
MisterBastahrd 10y ago
The hell I won't. Southerners didn't acknowledge that racism was wrong and slavery was evil until it was beaten into their hard skulls to the point where it was completely socially unacceptable to state a preference for either. I know this because I'm FROM there.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  At the cost of a war that killed the most Americans in history.
Scirra_Tom 10y ago
> most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban Source? June 2016, 48% of Republican votes strongly support a ban on Muslims entering the U.S: https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6ecRKMebsPAFHon1HVC86QbFYTg=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7084669/Muslim%20ban%20polling.png https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6ecRKMebsPAFHon1HVC86QbFYTg...
- myblake 10y ago
  That means 52% of Republicans don't strongly support it, and Trump was elected by a mix of Republicans, independents and even Some Democrats.
  - Scirra_Tom 10y ago
    OK, but 52% is a pretty scary number. I'm still curious for a source on the statement that "most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban". If big numbers did vote for him on that reason then there's a cancer running deep in USA's society that trying to brush under the rug isn't really going to help.
    - mrchicity 10y ago
      In a two-party system, few people agree with every policy in someone's platform. I voted for Clinton but disagreed with many of her views and actions. Oftentimes people are voting based on a single very important issue or for the lesser of two evils. I'm curious why you think supporting a ban like this is a "cancer"? It's heavy-handed and misguided, but religion is ideology. People see heinous acts worldwide perpetrated in the name of Islam. Some Muslims have extremely regressive beliefs on women's rights, gay rights, personal freedoms like drinking alcohol or even making loans that make even the staunchest Bible thumper look progressive. They see countries with larger Muslim immigrant populations like France in constant disarray, with little integration and once peaceful neighborhoods lit on fire. Even people with no initial ties to terrorism read up on this ideology online and commit lone wolf attacks. So why do we want these people coming in? Maybe we have a principles-based belief in religious freedom and don't want to appear discriminatory. There are some more secular or Westernized Muslims who can live peacefully and contribute to our society. Helping refugees will help save innocent lives and undermine ISIS. Those are all great reasons, but it's disingenuous to pretend they come at zero cost. Some people do this analysis and say it's worth it, and others disagree. A sovereign state has a right to its borders and admitting immigrants who advance its interests. I don't support the ban, namely for the reasons I gave above, but it's completely understandable why someone would. It doesn't make them a bigot or evil, just scared and perhaps lacking in empathy. The hardcore left does itself no favors in this regard, constantly parroting the "religion of peace" line and pretending there are no reasonable reasons to oppose immigration that they need to argue against.
myblake 10y ago
Absolutely! There's some folks who aren't going to be persuaded and love what Trumps doing, but there's a large group of people who tried to convince themselves this was just campaign rhetoric, or who just disposed Hillary, or who are conservative Christians and pro life but who do missionary work and help refugees. Collapsing anyone who supported Trump into "deplorables" won't help change their minds next time an election comes up. Convincing them that he's dangerous and doesn't represent their values however very well might.
467568985476 10y ago
This comment reeks of victim blaming. Nobody who voted for Trump and Pence should be allowed to escape being held accountable for what they support. If their "economic anxiety" was bad enough that they can ignore the rights of LGBT people and religious minorities, then they are all the more guilty. Those people were never centrists and knew exactly who they voted for.
- Groxx 10y ago
  So by voting you're responsible for everything the person you voted for does? That leads to nobody but the extremes voting. Has there ever been a candidate who even talked 100% of what you would approve of? If no, why did you vote (or have you ever)?
  - 467568985476 10y ago
    Come on, banning Muslims was a _key campaign point_. He talked about it all the time during the primaries and the general election. So yes, I do hold people accountable for voting for this.
    - Groxx 10y ago
      Every candidate has had key points that I've fundamentally disagreed with. And taken actions I fundamentally disagree with, which is even worse than campaign talking-points. Should I vote? Edit: to be clear, I do think Trump is (and was) much further down the extreme side than others have been in recent history. But what you're advocating for does not make sense.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  You focus so much on holding people accountable rather than prevention. Lay off seeking justice for a while, try to seek order instead. Listen to why people voted Trump rather than call them all bigots and justify it with "they knew what they were getting into". As a european who truly despises Trump: This idea that you're too busy blaming people for being racist to spend time listening to them is honestly frightening. One day perhaps in your lifetime, there'll be a candidate, populist like Trump but with extreme-left ideals and you'll be duped, just like the people you refuse to listen to were duped, because when there was time to learn you chose to be vengeful instead.
oculusthrift 10y ago
yeah a lot aren't racist, they are just incredibly stupid lemmings. we need to learn to brainwash them like Fox News, Trump, and ads for buying gold do.
anigbrowl 10y ago
I've sen a lot of angst over the last week about people on the left expressing approval for 'punching nazis' following Richard Spencer suffering a whack on the ear during a TV interview. It's true, someone, probably form the left, carried out an act of physical violence while he was just standing there talking. But let's not forget that Spencer and various members of his social circle have - for years now - been expressing approval for ethnic cleansing and even straight-up genocide. Some people say that the solution to objectionable speech is more speech, but that's an easy stand to take when you're not one of the people who should be 'ovened' in alt-right parlance. Oh sure, they're just expressing their dislike and probably don't have an actual to plan to construct ovens and shove people into them, but this is not the sort of joke whose punchline I care to passively wait around for. When people are promoting genocidal ideas and attempting to normalize them as political discourse, they are themselves engaged in political violence, notwithstanding that it's indirect incitement rather than active commission. If you've ever been the target of gang violence than you may have experienced the phenomenon of a smart person calling the shots, while bigger and less cerebral types do the actual punching and kicking. That's why, if you find yourself cornered by a gang, you should focus your attentions on the guy at the back rather than the toughs in the front. It's true that not everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot. But they were OK with voting for one, weren't they? The longer someone makes excuses for this sort of thing, the more responsibility one takes on for it. You say you're worried about the rhetoric from the left, but it's Trump who has been going about expressing a desire to use nuclear weapons, punish women who have abortions, muzzle the press, demean women and so on. I am absolutely not going to apologize for being against such statements or moderate my condemnation of them. If you let those things slide by saying 'it's just Trump being Trump' or whatever, then you're making excuses for the systematic intimidation of large social groups. Why would you want to normalize such behavior? Why does open opposition to that bother you?
- innocentoldguy 10y ago
  I have questions about a few of your comments, if you don't mind indulging me: 1. Who is speaking for ethnic cleansing and genocide? Can you provide citations? I hear a lot of people talking out against illegal immigration, since it drives down wages and makes it harder for poor Americans to compete and make a living. I also hear politicking regarding banning muslims from entering the U.S., due to the fear of terrorism. I agree that an all out ban stinks of WW II internment camps (a bit close to home too, since my wife is Japanese), but I'm not sure how you can extrapolate genocide from those conversations. Disallowing people from entering the U.S. doesn't really equate to genocide, does it? I don't really know what you're referring to, exactly, since you didn't provide any citations, but "genocide" seems a bit hyperbolic to me, with the information I currently have. 2. Are you advocating physical violence against people who have differing opinions than you? You lead in with Richard Spencer, and then ended by saying you're not going to apologize for being against the political speech you're referring to. I'm curious if you're suggesting physical violence as a means of shutting down said opinions?
thedevil 10y ago
> I didn't vote for Trump, but I do identify with some of the beliefs of those who did, and I can tell you that the rhetoric I'm hearing from many of the most vocal left is pushing the middle away. I'm in the exact same boat. I don't like Trump at all and this move frightens me. But my friends who argued for Trump actually had more logical arguments and my friends who opposed Trump actually mostly just insulted the people who voted for Trump. How is anyone going to listen to us if we just insult them?
- disantlor 10y ago
  why are we giving so much benefit of the doubt to trump and trumps supporters not only is this move ridiculous but it was executed with no foresight. now border agents are forced to make ad hoc decisions because it went into effect immediately. trump supporters cheering and claiming its just temporary, to give us time to "figure out whats going on" are deluding themselves. they rush through a ridiculous, anti-american order and now somehow they are going to make it all better. trump supporters are a minority of the country. they won this time but i dont see any reason to pander to them.
  - thedevil 10y ago
    Well, we definitely should not pander to them. I actually think most people (Trump supporters, you, me, everyone) vote mostly based on identity (liberal/conservative, religion, race, open-minded, well-mannered, etc). I think Trump supporters mostly voted for the party that they most identified with, the guy they thought was on their side. And I think you did the same. (I see myself as unaligned and open-minded, thus I voted for someone else as I found both sides to be extreme and closed-minded.) But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most Trump supporters are horrible people. But they are still people. Like you and me, they have a dark and a noble side. And, just like you and me, they are not going to listen to the reasons of someone who insults them. So what do we gain from demonizing them? We only lose influence.
    - 551199 10y ago
      Republicans were against Trump. He's a centric independent who run as republican. By all means liberals keep doubling down on identity politics. The anti-fascist are the new fascist. Democrats were against Lincoln as well. Trump will be championed as modern day hero who was opposed by the most hateful people.
jusq2 10y ago
Its constructive but not enough. Tech CEO's have to address the outsourcing/factory shutdowns and visa misuse that has happened for a couple decades now. Using the Obama line of "well those jobs have gone and wont come back" creates space for characters like Trump to exploit.
emehrkay 10y ago
I feel like the only thing that he campaigned on was hurting black/brown people and repealing the ACA. Everything else, every other policy topic was met with "I have the best people" or "I will have the best advisors." He constantly, falsely, repeated how bad black people have it in inner cities. How we can't go anywhere without the fear of being shot and killed by other black people. He touted the need for a nation-wide stop and frisk program, something deemed wildly ineffective by anyone who looked at the data. He demonized muslims EVERY chance he got. Every. Single. One. Remember the whole Khizr Khan incident? He is still trying to build a wall that will be costly and ineffective. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have any good will for people who voted for him. Especially the "I voted for you, but you're doing X" people. EVERYONE seen how hateful his campaign was. There isn't a sensible person who looked at it and thought otherwise. However, there are a lot of people who witnessed what he was doing and thought "it won't hurt me though" and were absolutely okay with him and his hateful approach to "making America great" Fuck them I know people, aside from myself and my family, that are already hurting because of his policies. And now when he gets whatever form of that nationwide stop and frisk going, it won't be white kids harassed by law enforcement, it will be my suburban black son and his friends. You can miss me with the "not all voters" bull because every single one of them are complicit in how things are going now. Those people NEED to be called out. They need to be shown and constantly told that they made the WORST choice. I don't care about their feelings when the person that they voted for policies will criminalize me and a lot of people that I care about. Again, fuck their feelings
- akjainaj 10y ago
  >How we can't go anywhere without the fear of being shot and killed by other black people. I'm not from the US but this really looks awful. I wouldn't set foot on this city even if you paid me a million dollars. http://crime.chicagotribune.com/ http://crime.chicagotribune.com/
  - i_cant_speel 10y ago
    Yes, there's problems in Chicago. But the violence is heavily concentrated in the South and West side. I live in a nicer part of Chicago and I've never felt like I was in any danger where I live. Even walking home by myself at 2 AM. Every city has bad and good areas. Chicago is no different.
dandersh 10y ago
I'm sorry but they've pushed themselves away by their own actions. At some point a stand has to be taken and a demand for accountability has to be made. At this point I'm not willing to wait to see how far this goes before they come to their senses.
id 10y ago
So the reasonable people should shift down a gear so that those who take extreme positions are less offended?
empath75 10y ago
Trump is the most unpopular new president in history and lost the popular vote by millions of votes. He doesn't have the middle. He has an obnoxious minority.

beatpanda 10y ago

At what point do we start holding people accountable then? Trump, so far, has done exactly what he said he would do. Are we supposed to believe the people who voted for him simply weren't listening?

burkaman 10y ago
This is just a practicality argument. The people best placed to stop Trump are members of Congress, they need votes to stay in office, so we need to convince their voters. "Holding people accountable" isn't productive.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  Boycotts are so effective many places make them illegal.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - a3n 10y ago
    One of LL Bean's board members thinks they're Unamerican and bullying.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    How do you boycott 60 million random people? The statement was about voters, not companies or other organizations.
    - RodericDay 10y ago
      seems to me like the comment was obviously about other big decision-makers
      - ahartman00 10y ago
        would you want to lose your job because your boss said something they shouldnt have? or just something that ~50% of the population disagrees with? because the companies you are thinking about boycotting very likely have ~50% of their employees who have similar political positions to you. you're hurting them too.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ebola1717 10y ago
Exaclty. Two of his biggest campaign promises were to build a wall to keep out Mexicans and to ban Muslims immigrants and refugees. The wall was one of his earliest campaign promises. I find it amazing that we're supposed to believe that the majority of Trump voters don't support at least one of these.
- TuringNYC 10y ago
  Note, this is far broader than the refugee ban initially discussed. The ban truly is a Muslim ban. See quote from Reuters -- it bans permanent residents (i.e. greencard holders.) Note that permanent residents have to pay taxes even if living overseas! "It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-gree...
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    Too bad it doesn't ban individuals from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (because if it was about islamism, it should) Also, banning permanent residents is just ludicrous
  - finid 10y ago
    Muslims, then GC holders. Very soon, certain group of citizens will suffer the same fate. The prison walls are getting closer... By the time you're able to reach out and touch them, it'd be too late.
    - qazwsxedchac 10y ago
      Quite. Historically, countries which build walls don't do so to keep people out, but to keep them in.
    - TuringNYC 10y ago
      Well, that didnt take long. The definition is about to get broader, per WSJ: In a statement that the State Department is due to release, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the 90-day visa moratorium extends beyond just citizens of Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. It also applies to people who originally hail from those countries but are traveling on a passport issued by any other nation, the statement notes. That means Iraqis seeking to enter the U.S. on a British passport, for instance, would be barred, according to a U.S. official...." http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-visa-ban-also-applies-to-citizens-with-dual-nationality-state-department-says-1485628654?mod=e2fb http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-visa-ban-also-applies-to-c...
DanBC 10y ago
Here's what the current vice president said about banning Muslim immigrants last year. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/825371208355020801 https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/825371208355020801 "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the US are offensive and unconstitutional". Were people listening to that and hoping he'd reign in Trump? Was he lying when he said that? Trump just spews a bunch of stuff, some of it contradicts things he said earlier.

karmelapple 10y ago

It's all in a per-individual basis. I know many family members who specifically encouraged this ban. To them, I will now have to have the difficult conversation of how their desire for safety - at any cost to people unlike themselves - has unintended consequences. And I doubt it will be a pleasant conversation.

bobzibub 10y ago
I think that their desire for safety is not valid either. If an immigrant population believes they are unwanted by the majority, they'll tend to have "no skin in the game" for the society which they live and be much more open to political violence, crime etc. I believe if you compare (in this case) Muslim immigrants to England vs Muslim immigrants to Canada you'll see a difference in acceptance by the majority. Obviously Canada does not have universal acceptance of Muslim immigrants or any immigrants, but Canada does try to integrate immigrants more. I believe this is reflected in the number of terrorist attacks in those countries. If the Muslim immigrant minority (or any other) becomes more alienated, expect poor outcomes. Just like some poor Americans feel alienated by their country and some have fewer qualms about violent political acts. I'm a Canuck and so I may be biased. But if my understanding is incorrect, I'd be interested in hearing.
- pm90 10y ago
  Canada does not have anywhere near the same amount of skin in global geopolitics as the US, consequently it has not pissed off large number of people in other countries making it less of a target for bad things. I do appreciate the immigration system in Canada and such, I'm only pointing out why the comparison b/w US and Canada is not correct in this particular matter.
- leesalminen 10y ago
  "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." -Theodore Roosevelt 1907

danieldk 10y ago

This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you are (co-)responsible for the outcome. If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.

oh_sigh 10y ago
Would you rather have a job and a racist in power, or no job and a person isn't racist in power? I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.
- gizmo 10y ago
  Minorities on average earn less, have less job security and despite this they utterly rejected Trump and his hateful platform. Trump voters also weren't the most economically desperate, those people voted Clinton. Trump did well among solidly middle class white people in rural areas. So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate.
  - einarvollset 10y ago
    Data does not support your opinion (yes I know Latinos is only one minority): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-better-with-latino-voters-than-romney-did/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-bett...
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      65 percent Clinton to 29 percent Trump is a pretty strong margin regardless of how it compares to the previous election.
    - gizmo 10y ago

gizmo 10y ago

Whether demonizing people who express hateful beliefs is good strategy is unclear at best. Demonizing people you want to find common ground with is unstrategic, certainly, but I think demonizing and shaming people who are spreading hate is necessary and effective, because it sends a clear signal that bigotry is intolerable. There is a huge difference between calling every single Trump voter a racist and bigot, and making the correct observation that Trump got elected on a platform of racism and bigotry. Some Trump voters chose him because of his racism and bigotry, and some Trump voters chose him despite of it. Regardless, there are no Trump voters for whom racism and bigotry are complete deal-breakers, as painful as that may be to acknowledge.

MisterBastahrd 10y ago

The hell I won't. Southerners didn't acknowledge that racism was wrong and slavery was evil until it was beaten into their hard skulls to the point where it was completely socially unacceptable to state a preference for either. I know this because I'm FROM there.

tomjen3 10y ago
At the cost of a war that killed the most Americans in history.

Scirra_Tom 10y ago

> most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban Source? June 2016, 48% of Republican votes strongly support a ban on Muslims entering the U.S: https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6ecRKMebsPAFHon1HVC86QbFYTg=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7084669/Muslim%20ban%20polling.png https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6ecRKMebsPAFHon1HVC86QbFYTg...

myblake 10y ago
That means 52% of Republicans don't strongly support it, and Trump was elected by a mix of Republicans, independents and even Some Democrats.
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  OK, but 52% is a pretty scary number. I'm still curious for a source on the statement that "most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban". If big numbers did vote for him on that reason then there's a cancer running deep in USA's society that trying to brush under the rug isn't really going to help.
  - mrchicity 10y ago
    In a two-party system, few people agree with every policy in someone's platform. I voted for Clinton but disagreed with many of her views and actions. Oftentimes people are voting based on a single very important issue or for the lesser of two evils. I'm curious why you think supporting a ban like this is a "cancer"? It's heavy-handed and misguided, but religion is ideology. People see heinous acts worldwide perpetrated in the name of Islam. Some Muslims have extremely regressive beliefs on women's rights, gay rights, personal freedoms like drinking alcohol or even making loans that make even the staunchest Bible thumper look progressive. They see countries with larger Muslim immigrant populations like France in constant disarray, with little integration and once peaceful neighborhoods lit on fire. Even people with no initial ties to terrorism read up on this ideology online and commit lone wolf attacks. So why do we want these people coming in? Maybe we have a principles-based belief in religious freedom and don't want to appear discriminatory. There are some more secular or Westernized Muslims who can live peacefully and contribute to our society. Helping refugees will help save innocent lives and undermine ISIS. Those are all great reasons, but it's disingenuous to pretend they come at zero cost. Some people do this analysis and say it's worth it, and others disagree. A sovereign state has a right to its borders and admitting immigrants who advance its interests. I don't support the ban, namely for the reasons I gave above, but it's completely understandable why someone would. It doesn't make them a bigot or evil, just scared and perhaps lacking in empathy. The hardcore left does itself no favors in this regard, constantly parroting the "religion of peace" line and pretending there are no reasonable reasons to oppose immigration that they need to argue against.

myblake 10y ago

Absolutely! There's some folks who aren't going to be persuaded and love what Trumps doing, but there's a large group of people who tried to convince themselves this was just campaign rhetoric, or who just disposed Hillary, or who are conservative Christians and pro life but who do missionary work and help refugees. Collapsing anyone who supported Trump into "deplorables" won't help change their minds next time an election comes up. Convincing them that he's dangerous and doesn't represent their values however very well might.

467568985476 10y ago

This comment reeks of victim blaming. Nobody who voted for Trump and Pence should be allowed to escape being held accountable for what they support. If their "economic anxiety" was bad enough that they can ignore the rights of LGBT people and religious minorities, then they are all the more guilty. Those people were never centrists and knew exactly who they voted for.

Groxx 10y ago
So by voting you're responsible for everything the person you voted for does? That leads to nobody but the extremes voting. Has there ever been a candidate who even talked 100% of what you would approve of? If no, why did you vote (or have you ever)?
- 467568985476 10y ago
  Come on, banning Muslims was a _key campaign point_. He talked about it all the time during the primaries and the general election. So yes, I do hold people accountable for voting for this.
  - Groxx 10y ago
    Every candidate has had key points that I've fundamentally disagreed with. And taken actions I fundamentally disagree with, which is even worse than campaign talking-points. Should I vote? Edit: to be clear, I do think Trump is (and was) much further down the extreme side than others have been in recent history. But what you're advocating for does not make sense.
scrollaway 10y ago
You focus so much on holding people accountable rather than prevention. Lay off seeking justice for a while, try to seek order instead. Listen to why people voted Trump rather than call them all bigots and justify it with "they knew what they were getting into". As a european who truly despises Trump: This idea that you're too busy blaming people for being racist to spend time listening to them is honestly frightening. One day perhaps in your lifetime, there'll be a candidate, populist like Trump but with extreme-left ideals and you'll be duped, just like the people you refuse to listen to were duped, because when there was time to learn you chose to be vengeful instead.

oculusthrift 10y ago

yeah a lot aren't racist, they are just incredibly stupid lemmings. we need to learn to brainwash them like Fox News, Trump, and ads for buying gold do.

anigbrowl 10y ago

I've sen a lot of angst over the last week about people on the left expressing approval for 'punching nazis' following Richard Spencer suffering a whack on the ear during a TV interview. It's true, someone, probably form the left, carried out an act of physical violence while he was just standing there talking. But let's not forget that Spencer and various members of his social circle have - for years now - been expressing approval for ethnic cleansing and even straight-up genocide. Some people say that the solution to objectionable speech is more speech, but that's an easy stand to take when you're not one of the people who should be 'ovened' in alt-right parlance. Oh sure, they're just expressing their dislike and probably don't have an actual to plan to construct ovens and shove people into them, but this is not the sort of joke whose punchline I care to passively wait around for. When people are promoting genocidal ideas and attempting to normalize them as political discourse, they are themselves engaged in political violence, notwithstanding that it's indirect incitement rather than active commission. If you've ever been the target of gang violence than you may have experienced the phenomenon of a smart person calling the shots, while bigger and less cerebral types do the actual punching and kicking. That's why, if you find yourself cornered by a gang, you should focus your attentions on the guy at the back rather than the toughs in the front. It's true that not everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot. But they were OK with voting for one, weren't they? The longer someone makes excuses for this sort of thing, the more responsibility one takes on for it. You say you're worried about the rhetoric from the left, but it's Trump who has been going about expressing a desire to use nuclear weapons, punish women who have abortions, muzzle the press, demean women and so on. I am absolutely not going to apologize for being against such statements or moderate my condemnation of them. If you let those things slide by saying 'it's just Trump being Trump' or whatever, then you're making excuses for the systematic intimidation of large social groups. Why would you want to normalize such behavior? Why does open opposition to that bother you?

innocentoldguy 10y ago
I have questions about a few of your comments, if you don't mind indulging me: 1. Who is speaking for ethnic cleansing and genocide? Can you provide citations? I hear a lot of people talking out against illegal immigration, since it drives down wages and makes it harder for poor Americans to compete and make a living. I also hear politicking regarding banning muslims from entering the U.S., due to the fear of terrorism. I agree that an all out ban stinks of WW II internment camps (a bit close to home too, since my wife is Japanese), but I'm not sure how you can extrapolate genocide from those conversations. Disallowing people from entering the U.S. doesn't really equate to genocide, does it? I don't really know what you're referring to, exactly, since you didn't provide any citations, but "genocide" seems a bit hyperbolic to me, with the information I currently have. 2. Are you advocating physical violence against people who have differing opinions than you? You lead in with Richard Spencer, and then ended by saying you're not going to apologize for being against the political speech you're referring to. I'm curious if you're suggesting physical violence as a means of shutting down said opinions?

thedevil 10y ago

> I didn't vote for Trump, but I do identify with some of the beliefs of those who did, and I can tell you that the rhetoric I'm hearing from many of the most vocal left is pushing the middle away. I'm in the exact same boat. I don't like Trump at all and this move frightens me. But my friends who argued for Trump actually had more logical arguments and my friends who opposed Trump actually mostly just insulted the people who voted for Trump. How is anyone going to listen to us if we just insult them?

disantlor 10y ago
why are we giving so much benefit of the doubt to trump and trumps supporters not only is this move ridiculous but it was executed with no foresight. now border agents are forced to make ad hoc decisions because it went into effect immediately. trump supporters cheering and claiming its just temporary, to give us time to "figure out whats going on" are deluding themselves. they rush through a ridiculous, anti-american order and now somehow they are going to make it all better. trump supporters are a minority of the country. they won this time but i dont see any reason to pander to them.
- thedevil 10y ago
  Well, we definitely should not pander to them. I actually think most people (Trump supporters, you, me, everyone) vote mostly based on identity (liberal/conservative, religion, race, open-minded, well-mannered, etc). I think Trump supporters mostly voted for the party that they most identified with, the guy they thought was on their side. And I think you did the same. (I see myself as unaligned and open-minded, thus I voted for someone else as I found both sides to be extreme and closed-minded.) But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most Trump supporters are horrible people. But they are still people. Like you and me, they have a dark and a noble side. And, just like you and me, they are not going to listen to the reasons of someone who insults them. So what do we gain from demonizing them? We only lose influence.
  - 551199 10y ago
    Republicans were against Trump. He's a centric independent who run as republican. By all means liberals keep doubling down on identity politics. The anti-fascist are the new fascist. Democrats were against Lincoln as well. Trump will be championed as modern day hero who was opposed by the most hateful people.

jusq2 10y ago

Its constructive but not enough. Tech CEO's have to address the outsourcing/factory shutdowns and visa misuse that has happened for a couple decades now. Using the Obama line of "well those jobs have gone and wont come back" creates space for characters like Trump to exploit.

emehrkay 10y ago

I feel like the only thing that he campaigned on was hurting black/brown people and repealing the ACA. Everything else, every other policy topic was met with "I have the best people" or "I will have the best advisors." He constantly, falsely, repeated how bad black people have it in inner cities. How we can't go anywhere without the fear of being shot and killed by other black people. He touted the need for a nation-wide stop and frisk program, something deemed wildly ineffective by anyone who looked at the data. He demonized muslims EVERY chance he got. Every. Single. One. Remember the whole Khizr Khan incident? He is still trying to build a wall that will be costly and ineffective. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have any good will for people who voted for him. Especially the "I voted for you, but you're doing X" people. EVERYONE seen how hateful his campaign was. There isn't a sensible person who looked at it and thought otherwise. However, there are a lot of people who witnessed what he was doing and thought "it won't hurt me though" and were absolutely okay with him and his hateful approach to "making America great" Fuck them I know people, aside from myself and my family, that are already hurting because of his policies. And now when he gets whatever form of that nationwide stop and frisk going, it won't be white kids harassed by law enforcement, it will be my suburban black son and his friends. You can miss me with the "not all voters" bull because every single one of them are complicit in how things are going now. Those people NEED to be called out. They need to be shown and constantly told that they made the WORST choice. I don't care about their feelings when the person that they voted for policies will criminalize me and a lot of people that I care about. Again, fuck their feelings

akjainaj 10y ago
>How we can't go anywhere without the fear of being shot and killed by other black people. I'm not from the US but this really looks awful. I wouldn't set foot on this city even if you paid me a million dollars. http://crime.chicagotribune.com/ http://crime.chicagotribune.com/
- i_cant_speel 10y ago
  Yes, there's problems in Chicago. But the violence is heavily concentrated in the South and West side. I live in a nicer part of Chicago and I've never felt like I was in any danger where I live. Even walking home by myself at 2 AM. Every city has bad and good areas. Chicago is no different.

dandersh 10y ago

I'm sorry but they've pushed themselves away by their own actions. At some point a stand has to be taken and a demand for accountability has to be made. At this point I'm not willing to wait to see how far this goes before they come to their senses.

id 10y ago

So the reasonable people should shift down a gear so that those who take extreme positions are less offended?

empath75 10y ago

Trump is the most unpopular new president in history and lost the popular vote by millions of votes. He doesn't have the middle. He has an obnoxious minority.