What is this election missing? Empathy for Trump voters. - WaPo

349 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Actually, I find it obnoxious that you delete the names of those you are quoting.

I don't delete them.

I copy the relevant part, type "square bracket quote other square bracket" then paste the stuff, then type "square bracket /quote other square bracket" and that's it.  I'm old school, but that's just how I roll.

Quote:
According to the article, he didn't get out of his car, he was dragged out. Your guess on why they dragged him out is as good as mine, but as I said, I'm guessing robbery.

Do you have any guesses as to why the bystanders would be audibly yelling about him (presumably) voting Trump, as opposed to, say, "OMFG, that man is being robbed!!" or "somebody call 911!  There's a robbery in progress!!"?

 

 

NDPP

#BlacksForTrump

https://twitter.com/alaskantexanQCT/status/797179942131863552

"Been watching the news, and I'm confused! As a Trump voter, I didn't know that I was a racist, white, hillbilly Republican??"

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...Do you have any guesses as to why the bystanders would be audibly yelling about him (presumably) voting Trump, as opposed to, say, "OMFG, that man is being robbed!!" or "somebody call 911!  There's a robbery in progress!!"?

Because there wasn't a robbery in progress?

 

6079_Smith_W

I do think the fake pieces should be pointed out as fake, but does the truth of those stories even matter? Do you not realize this tactic of running spot news of people behaving badly as "proof" is as old as the hills? Why do cops instigate riots if not to get that money shot?

But sure, the anti Trump side are just as bad as the emboldened racists. No difference at all.

 

Paladin1

Rev Pesky wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The video is the same everywhere.  Here it is on (neutral?) YouTube.

Sorry, but there was twice in that video the child had to use the sign to hide their smile. Setup much? Then there was the cut from indoors to outdoors.

Yup, those mock elections they have in Texas schools have consequences...

 

Well my mind is blown.

A black woman who logically has to vote for the democrats is in texas which means she has to be a republican, is kicking her republican-leaning son out of her democrat house making the democrats look bad.

So, white supremacist double agent?

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But sure, the anti Trump side are just as bad as the emboldened racists. No difference at all.

 

That's a scarecrow argument. It's not as simple as an anti-trump side VS racists side.

Rev Pesky

Paladin1 wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:
...Sorry, but there was twice in that video the child had to use the sign to hide their smile. Setup much? Then there was the cut from indoors to outdoors.

Yup, those mock elections they have in Texas schools have consequences...

 

Well my mind is blown.

A black woman who logically has to vote for the democrats is in texas which means she has to be a republican, is kicking her republican-leaning son out of her democrat house making the democrats look bad.

So, white supremacist double agent?

Paladin1, when you're looking at a video such as this one, you should ask yourself some questions. The first question you should ask is 'who's holding the camera?'

The next question is, 'why are they holding the camera?'

For instance, when someone makes a video of a child's birthday party, we can say with some certainty that it was probably a parent holding the camera, and the objective was to have a video of a special occasion in the child's life. I suppose one could say the above video was a special occasion in the child's life, but I'm not sure why someone would want to preserve it as a wonderful memory.

In the case of this specific video you have to make the assumption that the mother was making the video. Presumably with the thought that, "I'm going to make a video of me throwing my son out onto the street because he voted for Donald Trump, then I'm going to post the video to the internet to show everyone..."

At that point I start to wonder about the bona vides of the video. You should too, but perhaps your bullshit detector is out of order.

When you get the the part where, just by coincidence, in a mock election in a school within a few blocks there's another very similar outcome for someone who voted for Donald Trump, the alarm bells should be ringing away like mad.

On the other hand, if, like UFO'ers, you really want to believe, perhaps your judgement will be temporarily overcome.

Pondering

Wow. A debate on whose supporters are worse, Clinton supporters or Trump supporters.

Paladin1

PR, that sounds about as legitimate as the white man getting the shit kicked out of him in that video driving up to someone shouting racial slurs then bragging about voting Trump, resulting in getting beat up.

 

Pondering I don't think it's a matter or whos worse.  Question for you. In the states universities are consoling stidents.

-Colouring books and play-doh to calm them.

-Therapy dogs.

-Hand out tissues and hot chocolate.

-Arts and Crafts sessions

 

Do you think maybe they're being treated like children? Just a little?

 

 

quizzical

no.

anxiety problems are real and your mocking those suffering indicates just who you are and aren't.

Paladin1

 

You'd be surprised how much I'm involved with mental health and mental ilness.

Self-diagnosis of stuff like anxeity, PTSD and depression is bad. If students are dealing with actual anxiety problems as a medical issue then they need professional medical help.  For students simply upset treating them with kid gloves will do nothing to build mental resillency required for the adult world.

quizzical

good grief. if you knew so much you would understand situational anxiety and depression.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But sure, the anti Trump side are just as bad as the emboldened racists. No difference at all.

 

That's a scarecrow argument. It's not as simple as an anti-trump side VS racists side.

Indeed. My point is that anecdotal youtube clips do not outweigh hundreds of years of systemic racism and oppression.

Doesn't even outweigh the arson, the bottles broken over  a head, or the murder.

 

 

 

Paladin1

quizzical wrote:

good grief. if you knew so much you would understand situational anxiety and depression.

I understand situaltional anxiety and depression. I also know that  situational anxiety is not medically recognized and feeling sad or down isn't depression. 

 

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But sure, the anti Trump side are just as bad as the emboldened racists. No difference at all.

 

That's a scarecrow argument. It's not as simple as an anti-trump side VS racists side.

Indeed. My point is that anecdotal youtube clips do not outweigh hundreds of years of systemic racism and oppression.

Doesn't even outweigh the arson, the bottles broken over  a head, or the murder.

 

 

Exactly.

I don't know if Trump is a racist or not, I would need to do more reading to make an informed opinion. I'm confident that racists will try and use him to further their own asshole agenda regardless if Trump actually is a racist or not.  I have seen numerous examples of black Americans being targeted by the left and become the enemy for the sin of expressing freedom of choice and supporting Trump. Look at the shit Oprah is dealing with accross twitter now.  [As a caveat I've never seen Trump laughing about murdering another human being (including one from another race) like Clinton did.]

 

Anyhow it's interesting how quickly the veneer of tollerance is cast aside when things don't go someones way. Does anyone really think protesting will accomplish anything? "Not my president". Actually he is whether people accept it or not.

Is Trump going to step down? He doesn't strike me as the type anymore than I would expect Hillary to step down amid right wing protests. The only people who protests hurt are the victims of violence and property damage.

 

For completely selfish reasons I'm glad Trump won. A win for trump means there's less of a chance I'll be staring down 2.7 million Russian soldiers and 22'200 Russian tanks.  A Trump win also inturupts the Bush-Clinton empire who feels they're destined to rule.  There's telling reasons why the US military was pro Trump and money-for-hire contractors and arms dealers were pro Clinton.

quizzical

it does. it comes under the GAD heading.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Trump is a racist..at best a bigot and it's well documented. This whole, 'Trump isnt that bad' crap certain people here want to go on about is exactly that -- crap.

Take a good and lucid look at who he's surrounded himself with. This is something unlike anyone has seen,at least in my lifetime.

It's going to be even worse than people think. Wake the fuck up!   

Paladin1

GAD or Generalized Aniexty Disorder is characterized by a persistent worry about everyday issues.  A situational anxiety (aka stage fright) isn't persistant. It is like the name implies, situational.

http://www.calmclinic.com/anxiety-types/situational-anxiety-disorder

You may be thinking of an Acute Stress Disorder resulting from Trump winning the election. That's a medical disorder (but still a stretch IMO).  Probably getting off topic though, I'll just agree with you ;)

Aristotleded24

Paladin1 wrote:
Anyhow it's interesting how quickly the veneer of tollerance is cast aside when things don't go someones way. Does anyone really think protesting will accomplish anything? "Not my president". Actually he is whether people accept it or not.

I actually think that absent evidence of voter fraud (which there wasn't in this case*) that protesting the fact that someone won the election is counter-productive. It makes the left look petty and petulant, like we are throwing temper tantrums just because things didn't go our way. (Sane Progressive has also called out the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EimmW-OJcV0]hypocricy of protesting Donald Trump but staying silent when Obama continued through with some of the worst policies of the Bush Administration.[/url]) When Trump tries to do something bad, by all means try to stop it from happening. Campaigning on issues like that makes people understand what is going on, and who knows, people who support candidates you don't agree with may even join your campaign. This whole "we don't like Trump" is just wasting valuable political capital at a time when we have very little to waste.

*People are going to point out that there were voter ID laws that prevented people from voting, and that's true. But while Trump may have benefitted from that, he in no way had a major hand in shaping that policy; in other words, he did not steal the election. The issue here is the states that have passed voter ID laws, and those state governments are where that protest should be directed.

bekayne

Aristotleded24 wrote:

*People are going to point out that there were voter ID laws that prevented people from voting, and that's true. But while Trump may have benefitted from that, he in no way had a major hand in shaping that policy; in other words, he did not steal the election. The issue here is the states that have passed voter ID laws, and those state governments are where that protest should be directed.

Republican. All of them.

 

Mr. Magoo

There's approximately 3.98 years until the next election.  Perhaps someone might want to use that time to urge Americans who don't have any identification whatsoever to get some identification.  It's not like voting is the only time it'll come in handy.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

There's approximately 3.98 years until the next election.  Perhaps someone might want to use that time to urge Americans who don't have any identification whatsoever to get some identification.  It's not like voting is the only time it'll come in handy.

 

Blocking traffic, spray painting graffiti and throwing flaming projectiles seems like a better economy of effort.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture
Mr. Magoo

It wasn't the last time.

Also, I'm not sure that cheering on a drug kingpin who wants to assassinate the President-elect is really the kind of discourse a progressive site wants to promote.

A child psychologist would call this "acting out", alan.  Clearly you're hurting, and you need others to know how much.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It wasn't the last time.

Also, I'm not sure that cheering on a drug kingpin who wants to assassinate the President-elect is really the kind of discourse a progressive site wants to promote.

A child psychologist would call this "acting out", alan.  Clearly you're hurting, and you need others to know how much.

Cheerleading a fascist is not what one would call 'progressive' either. And I'm sick of people here doing it.

BTW.I'm not 'hurting' and frankly,I'm tired of your condescension. I've made it clear to everyone here for YEARS that I'm vehemently anti-authoritarian.

This Orange Bozo is not only an authoritarian but a bonafide fascist. I'm tired of people making excuses for him and downplaying what a complete disaster this Mussolini in a halloween suit is going to be.

 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
BTW.I'm not 'hurting' and frankly,I'm tired of your condescension. I've made it clear to everyone here for YEARS that I'm vehemently anti-authoritarian.

I'm not "cheerleading" Trump.  In fact, I think that all of my posts regarding this election made it clear that I thought that Clinton was the better choice for President, and also -- realistically --  the only other choice for President.  And I said this even as others delighted in telling us how she was too sickly, how she set up some e-mail server thing, how she was dying to launch nuclear missiles on Russia at her earliest convenience, and how she was clearly the WORSE candidate.

But the votes are in, the Electoral College has spoken, and I just don't see any point in thinking that if some people develop flesh-eating disease of the neck, that's what's going to make a better world.

Should Trump supporters be publicly gang-raped, alan?  Seriously... what about that?  I'm just trying to get some sense of whether your rage at them has limits, or if "anything goes".

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But the votes are in, the Electoral College has spoken, and I just don't see any point in thinking that if some people develop flesh-eating disease of the neck, that's what's going to make a better world.

Should Trump supporters be publicly gang-raped, alan?  Seriously... what about that?  I'm just trying to get some sense of whether your rage at them has limits, or if "anything goes".

First off,I never questioned the results.Please show me where i said that.

And Trump supporters bveing gang-raped? That came out of your mouth. Again,show me where I said that.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
And Trump supporters bveing gang-raped? That came out of your mouth. Again,show me where I said that.

You totally did NOT say that, alan.

I'm just asking whether you'd be down with it.  Because I'm trying to get a sense of how far this goes with you.

If it's too much, then what about public beatings?  Or  public shamings?  Just show us where your line is.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
And Trump supporters bveing gang-raped? That came out of your mouth. Again,show me where I said that.

You totally did NOT say that, alan.

I'm just asking whether you'd be down with it.  Because I'm trying to get a sense of how far this goes with you.

If it's too much, then what about public beatings?  Or  public shamings?  Just show us where your line is.

I'm an anti-authoritarian/anti-fascist. Radically so. I'll keep it at that. Make of it what you will.

Paladin1

 

Supporting  murder of a human being by a criminal that's in all liklihood raped and murdered many many other people to get where he is in the drug cartel world to prove a point seems like poor judgement.

This doesn't help the left's argument (or I would suggest the image of this site).

Mr. Magoo

Very well, alan.

But you wish so much ill on those who chose Trump.  You seem to enjoy your own right to want what you think is best.  Do you extend that to others who disagree with you?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Very well, alan.

But you wish so much ill on those who chose Trump.  You seem to enjoy your own right to want what you think is best.  Do you extend that to others who disagree with you?

Not at all..But I have no time for neo-nazis,racists,fascists or right wingers (pretty much) Of course if I got enraged at people for simply disagreeing with them,I'd be on the war path 24/7.

I'm disgusted by that vile cheeto faced authoritarian,alt-right wanna be Mussolini. And I'm disgusted with a majority of his followers,most just as vile as he is.

quizzical

good article from Karl....on the whole Mussolini Hitler fascism anti-semite thing going on with Trump and his supporters

 

Quote:
...what is scary about Trump.

He is a demagogic politician of the right who has the power to convince displaced and ignored members of the industrial working class that he can offer them hope.

In this, he is very much in the tradition of earlier Fascists – and one must not shy away from the political sobriquet that best suits Trump and his campaign.

Here's how one former senior Canadian government official put it to this writer:

"Yes, this is Fascism. For now, it lacks the organizational trappings, but the brownshirts are on the fringes, together with the slogans, the incipient uniforms, the slogans, and the threat of physical violence. The denigration of all things democratic, denial of legitimacy for other authority (courts, independent police), and the myth of an uber-mensch…Yes, the real ingredients for Fascism. And it is altogether enabled by social media."

A seasoned Canadian academic, who researched Italian dictator Benito Mussolini's rise to power in Italy, told this writer that, at this stage in their careers, Trump is, in fact, more of a Fascist than was Mussolini...

 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2016/11/dont-kid-yourself...

bekayne

Trump just named his chief political advisor. The guy responsible for this:

View image on Twitter

bekayne

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-alt-right-hails-its-victorio...

The morning after the election, an influential alt-right blogger who goes by Vox Day wrote, “Donald Trump has a lot to do . . . It is the Alt-Right’s job to move the Overton Window and give him conceptual room to work.” Day and his peers have been doing this job for months. They have flooded the Internet with offensive images and words—cartoon frogs emblazoned with swastikas, theories of racial hierarchy—and then ridiculed anyone who had the temerity to be offended. “Racism and sexism are a) human beliefs, and, b) as legitimately held as any other belief,” Day told me in a recent e-mail. No picture is shocking. No idea is bad. Who gets to define bad, anyway? “Remember that rhetoric is the art of emotional manipulation,” Day added. Last week, on his blog, Day wrote, “There is no more Republican vs. Democrat. It is now whites vs. non-whites and white quislings.”

Trump connected to the segment of the population that was prepared to believe that racism was realism, misogyny was locker-room talk, inconvenient facts were media myths, and viciousness was the new normal. Just as surely as he has redrawn the electoral map, he has radically altered the Overton window. No Presidential candidate before him had ever mocked a disabled reporter, or bragged about his penis size during a debate. What kept every other candidate before him from stooping to these tactics, presumably, was deference to social norms. But norms can be swept aside.

 

Aristotleded24

bekayne wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

*People are going to point out that there were voter ID laws that prevented people from voting, and that's true. But while Trump may have benefitted from that, he in no way had a major hand in shaping that policy; in other words, he did not steal the election. The issue here is the states that have passed voter ID laws, and those state governments are where that protest should be directed.

Republican. All of them.

Yes, they were Republicans state governments. Emphasis on the state governments who need to be targeted for those actions, not Trump.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering I don't think it's a matter or whos worse.  Question for you. In the states universities are consoling stidents.

-Colouring books and play-doh to calm them.

-Therapy dogs.

-Hand out tissues and hot chocolate.

-Arts and Crafts sessions

Do you think maybe they're being treated like children? Just a little?

Yes it does. The entire system is designed to keep the peace and by extension the current power structure. Ironically we may have Trump to thank for stopping TPP.

Pondering

bekayne wrote:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-alt-right-hails-its-victorio...

The morning after the election, an influential alt-right blogger who goes by Vox Day wrote, “Donald Trump has a lot to do . . . It is the Alt-Right’s job to move the Overton Window and give him conceptual room to work.” Day and his peers have been doing this job for months. They have flooded the Internet with offensive images and words—cartoon frogs emblazoned with swastikas, theories of racial hierarchy—and then ridiculed anyone who had the temerity to be offended. “Racism and sexism are a) human beliefs, and, b) as legitimately held as any other belief,” Day told me in a recent e-mail. No picture is shocking. No idea is bad. Who gets to define bad, anyway? “Remember that rhetoric is the art of emotional manipulation,” Day added. Last week, on his blog, Day wrote, “There is no more Republican vs. Democrat. It is now whites vs. non-whites and white quislings.”

Trump connected to the segment of the population that was prepared to believe that racism was realism, misogyny was locker-room talk, inconvenient facts were media myths, and viciousness was the new normal. Just as surely as he has redrawn the electoral map, he has radically altered the Overton window. No Presidential candidate before him had ever mocked a disabled reporter, or bragged about his penis size during a debate. What kept every other candidate before him from stooping to these tactics, presumably, was deference to social norms. But norms can be swept aside.

 

If his appeal was limited to those people he would not have won.

quizzical

maybe there's more of "those people" than you thought pondering.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

quizzical wrote:

maybe there's more of "those people" than you thought pondering.

That's what post-election analysis is indicating. This election wasn't won on economics, and the majority of Trump supporters are not poor. This was about race and fear of change. Trump voters want the 1950s back, with all of the implications of the place of women and minorities in the social context.

quizzical

nostalgia for a time which never was.....

i'd say the implications of the propaganda to put women and minorities back into their "place" is a tad delusional.

we're talking about them trying to put over 50% of the US population back into a box.

i'm going to look at the white man stats in the USA

quizzical

according to the 2010 census non-hispanic white people make up 63.7% of the US population

if you cut the % in half for gender then there's about 31% of the population who are white males.

so we'd be looking at the suppression of 70% of the US population.

think it'd work?

6079_Smith_W

A majority of white men and white women voted for Trump.

\https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-don...

quizzical

i'd wait on the actual vote counts to say it as an absolute.

i don't believe for one moment the women who voted for Trump were voting for their repression.

if they were then once they feel it, the non-Duggar types, then their reality will change.

quizzical

i stumbled on this article don't know George something or another but i found his words compelling and it's like a mini-history lesson on things i guess i should've know...

Quote:
...The key task now is to tell a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century. It must be as appealing to some who have voted for Trump and Ukip as it is to the supporters of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.

A few of us have been working on this, and can discern what may be the beginning of a story. It’s too early to say much yet, but at its core is the recognition that – as modern psychology and neuroscience make abundantly clear – human beings, by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish. The atomisation and self-interested behaviour neoliberalism promotes run counter to much of what comprises human nature.

Hayek told us who we are, and he was wrong. Our first step is to reclaim our humanity.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-dona...

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

quizzical, women have been part of the reinforcement of the patriarchal system for generations.

Look at it this way - they are to some degree oppressed, but they are comfortable within the system. So they lack certain freedoms, but those freedoms are not as important to them as maintaining their current way of life.

So, for example, you can't get an abortion. But if you're evangelical Christian, the right to choose isn't going to be as important as "family values". Fighting for equal pay isn't going to be as important to you if you think career women are feminazis and hate men. And if you're sufficiently afraid of immigrants and people of colour, a level of oppression (which, let's face it, is lesser for white women than women of colour) is an acceptable trade-off. They'll take the oppression as women if they can maintain the privilege as white people and don't have to deal with change.

Doug Saunders had a good article that makes a better case than I can on the fly:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/the-real-reason-do...

Quote:
This sentiment - one I'd heard a lot at rallies and in Republican campaign offices - is what many scholars regard as a key identifier in extremism-tolerant psychology: a belief that social and political change - even if it is broadly beneficial - is to be feared and resisted and that order, stability and authority is crucial to comfort and security. Combine that with a sense of threatened ethnic identity, and membership in a lower-education voting group and you have what Prof. Kaufman and other scholars describe as the most potent recipe for authoritarianism.

"What we're looking at is part of the white population that prefers stability and order to novelty and change; that identifies with an ethnic conception of the nation tied to their own ethnic group; when you've got people with less degrees supporting these groups, they tend to be getting a lot of support from these places," Prof. Kaufman says.

There's also a good bit in there about exposure to immigrants and fear of immigrants. If you know a lot of immigrants or live in a neighbourhood with a lot of diversity, you aren't as afraid of them. But if you live in a white enclave, you tend to have more anxiety about brown people. Again, that anxiety will override worries about sexism much of the time.

6079_Smith_W

Plus a major factor in this election was racism, and ALL white people are part of that.

But it shouldn't be a head-scratcher why people vote for parties that work against them; that has been the case for Republican voters for the past century (and to a lesser degree, for Democrat voters as well) .

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/11/black-women-were-the-on...

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Let's put to rest the false equivalancy between Trump supporters and Clinton supporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.ht...

swallow swallow's picture

quizzical wrote:

i stumbled on this article don't know George something or another but i found his words compelling and it's like a mini-history lesson on things i guess i should've know...

Quote:
...The key task now is to tell a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century. It must be as appealing to some who have voted for Trump and Ukip as it is to the supporters of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.

A few of us have been working on this, and can discern what may be the beginning of a story. It’s too early to say much yet, but at its core is the recognition that – as modern psychology and neuroscience make abundantly clear – human beings, by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish. The atomisation and self-interested behaviour neoliberalism promotes run counter to much of what comprises human nature.

Hayek told us who we are, and he was wrong. Our first step is to reclaim our humanity.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-dona...

George Monbiot, one of the smarter people writing today, and thus often ignored. 

He also points out that Trump is an expression of neo-liberalism, not the negation of neo-liberalism. 

6079_Smith_W

I don't see it as an equivalency, alan, but the Democrats haven't delivered in all things either, That was my point.

The contrast is much starker with Republicans, particulary the fact the those states which vote against social services are the ones which use the most.

 

 

quizzical

swallow wrote:
George Monbiot, one of the smarter people writing today, and thus often ignored. 

He also points out that Trump is an expression of neo-liberalism, not the negation of neo-liberalism. 

i know heh. don't think i've knowlingly read him. if have hadn't retained it.

i didn't want to appear more un-informed than i am so did not want to ask wth was neo-liberalism really all about anyway. wiki didn't help.  now i get it.

Pages