Three Ethically Perceptive Takes On The Election

Amidst all the hysterical “the fascists, racists, homophobes, xenophobes and misogynists have taken over! Run! Hide!” commentary—which, incidentally, is inciting violence far more directly than anything Donald Trump has ever said—a couple of non-right wing commentators have tried to bring some perspective and rationality to the question of what happened Tuesday. Naturally, they focus on ethics.

First, however, in contrast, I give you the vile pronouncements of Slate’s professional race-baiter and anti-white demagogue, Jamelle Bouie. His piece for Slate—I will not trust the site as long as they give a bigot like Bouie a forum—was called “White Won.”  Here’s a typical passage:

“After eight years of a black president—after eight years in which cosmopolitan America asserted its power and its influence, eight years in which women leaned in and blacks declared that their lives mattered—millions of white Americans said enough. They had their fill of this world and wanted the old one back. And although it’s tempting to treat this as a function of some colorblind anti-elitism, that cannot explain the unity of white voters in this election. Trump didn’t just win working-class whites—he won the college-educated and the affluent. He even won young whites. Seventeen months after he announced his candidacy, millions of white Americans flocked to the ballot box to put Trump into the White House. And they did so as a white herrenvolk, racialized and radicalized by Trump.”

Three observations: 1) This is the mentality that Barack Obama and the Democrats have encouraged and nourished, in order to derive maximum political benefit from dividing the nation, 2) what epic gall to call Trump’s 58% of the white vote proof of racism, when Obama’s 93% black vote in 2012, after a disastrous first term (though the second term made it look good by comparison), was happily regarded as “loyalty,” 3) The fact that Trump’s opponent was corrupt and insulted half of all voters had nothing to do with how anyone voted.

Oh: Bouie’s screed was sub-headed, “We are still the country that produced George Wallace. We are still the country that killed Emmett Till.”

I didn’t vote for Trump, but on behalf of my country, I am offended and insulted.

That’s enough of that toxic jerk. Here are three open-minded commentators who are trying to blunt the left’s calculated strategy of turning half the nation against the other.

1. Robby Soave: Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash

I’ll begin by saying that Trump’s win is attributable to anger over political correctness goes too far, but the Left’s increasing hostility to free speech, and non-conforming opinion was definitely a prime source of legitimate suspicion and distrust toward Democrats. It was certainly among the factors that finally convinced me not to vote for Hillary.  Soave also is patting himself on the back for playing Cassandra. There is a lot of this “I told you so” going around, as usually happens when the conventional wisdom is spectacularly wrong. It’s all moral luck, of course. The pundits and experts seeking recognition as geniuses are trying to capitalize on being at least as lucky as wise. Still, Soave was right, and many others saw what he did. The Reason journalist writes in part…

I have tried to call attention to this issue for years. I have warned that political correctness actually is a problem on college campuses, where the far-left has gained institutional power and used it to punish people for saying or thinking the wrong thing….I have warned that a lot of people, both on campus and off it, were furious about political-correctness-run-amok—so furious that they would give power to any man who stood in opposition to it.

…The left sorted everyone into identity groups and then told the people in the poorly-educated-white-male identity group that that’s the only bad one. It mocked the members of this group mercilessly….It called them racists….

There is a cost to depriving people of the freedom (in both the legal and social senses) to speak their mind. The presidency just went to the guy whose main qualification, according to his supporters, is that he isn’t afraid to speak his.

2.  Will Rahn:  Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press

This is Ethics Hero territory: a CBS reporter pointing an accusing finger at his employer and the rest of the profession. Journalists finally pushed their arrogance, incompetent and bias to the breaking point, and serious wounded—I hope killed—the public’s trust. They slimed Sarah Palin and got away with it; they distorted Mitt Romney to re-elect Obama. But handed a candidate so awful that all they had to do was tell the truth, the news media still decided that it needed to make sure its candidate won. Americans like fairness. When Trump said the the election was “rigged” because the news media was supporting Hillary, it was so obvious that he was right.

Rahn:

Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic. So much for that. …Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice…This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence! 

3. Mike Rowe, on Facebook

The “Dirty Jobs” reality TV star is perceptive, objective and articulate, and when asked his reactions to the election—he was not a Trump supporter—replied in part:

I know people are freaked out…I get it. I’m worried too. But not because of who we elected. We’ve survived 44 Presidents, and we’ll survive this one too. I’m worried because millions of people now seem to believe that Trump supporters are racist, xenophobic, and uneducated misogynists. I’m worried because despising our candidates publicly is very different than despising the people who vote for them…

I don’t think Donald Trump won by tapping into America’s “racist underbelly,” and I don’t think Hillary lost because she’s a woman. I think a majority of people who voted in this election did so in spite of their many misgivings about the character of both candidates. That’s why it’s very dangerous to argue that Clinton supporters condone lying under oath and obstructing justice. Just as it’s equally dangerous to suggest a Trump supporter condones gross generalizations about foreigners and women.

These two candidates were the choices we gave ourselves, and each came with a heaping helping of vulgarity and impropriety. Yeah, it was dirty job for sure, but the winner was NOT decided by a racist and craven nation – it was decided by millions of disgusted Americans desperate for real change. The people did not want a politician. The people wanted to be seen. Donald Trump convinced those people that he could see them. Hillary Clinton did not.

Finally, a bonus analysis to provide perspective: mine.

Last night, as often happens, a comment from a reader (and old friend) prompted a “Eureka!” moment. I realized how very American this election was, and gained some respect and a great deal of understanding for what happened. The commenter wrote about how terrified people were, and how a friend had told her that she was seriously considering suicide. She also said she was beginning to lose her confidence that “it can’t happen here.” I was watching video of protests and riots as I read this. I wrote (I edited this slightly):

And this is what the scaremongering does to the ignorant and weakminded, to be brutally blunt, and why the scaremongers need to cut it out.

Anyone who seriously sees parallels between Trump and Hitler understands neither, nor the corresponding historical context, nor the two nations and their very different cultures. Hitler rose because the Germans, who always had wanted a strongman, were desperate, and their self-esteem had been destroyed. Americans got tired of being pushed around, lectured, and being told that traditional cultural values made them racists and xenophobes. They decided to say “Screw that!” by electing a protest candidate whose sole function was to be a human thumb in the eye, because he was so disgusting to the people who had pretended to be their betters. Don’t you understand? It’s idiotic, but the message isn’t. It’s “Animal House”! and “Animal House” is as American as Doolittle’s Raid:

Otter: Bluto’s right. Psychotic… but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!

Bluto: We’re just the guys to do it.

In Germany, The Big Cheese says jump and the Germans say “How high?” In the US, the response is “Fuck you!” Obama never understood that. He and the Democrats are finally getting the “fuck you!” they have been asking for. I love that about America. And much as I hate the idea of an idiot being President, I do love the message and who it was sent to. America still has spunk.

I love spunk.

 

38 Comments

Filed under Arts & Entertainment, Citizenship, Ethics Heroes, Etiquette and manners, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Race, U.S. Society

38 responses to “Three Ethically Perceptive Takes On The Election

  1. brian

    My basic take away is really two small points. This election was Greek tragedy come to life, hubris followed by nemesis. I have watched my young cohort use nothing but snark, mockery, and tribal loyalty when dealing with anyone who disagree’s with them politically. They had a choice, they could have tried to understand that there are good people on the other side with honest disagreements about the method to achieve the outcomes we all want; more/good jobs, affordable healthcare, safe international relations, and a secure future. Instead of empathizing with their ideological counterparts, they arrogantly ignored, marginalized, and otherized them. I hope, but doubt, their take away message, after the despair and fear that always comes from meeting your nemesis, is to realize humility is the cure for hubris.

    My second point, they took, and some still are, Trump literally but not seriously. This was a mistake they fell for hook, line, and sinker because of that same arrogance. It was easy to make fun of his outlandish and factually incorrect statements, their bias made it impossible to believe anyone so wrong could have a point. When he said things like, Black youth unemployment is at 60%, they smugly pointed out that the ‘real’ number was closer 25%. When he said, ‘When you hear about…so many people in Chicago dying, it’s worse than some of the places we’re hearing about like Afghanistan’, they patted themselves on the back for ‘correcting’ his misleading stats. They never even realized just how out of touch they were, 25% black unemployment and 500 murders in Chicago as of Sept of this year!!! Those are serious problems in this country and all they can do is fact check him and laugh. The people who elected him took him seriously but not literally.

    • Helpful perspective; thanks.

    • valkygrrl

      Chicago went overwhelmingly for Clinton and everyone outside of Chicago who talks about the murder rate here hasn’t the slightest clue what’s actually going on. I am so sick of seeing right-wingers try to make political hay of a situation they’re completely ignorant of.

      There has been a gang war going on for years. Gang members are shooting at each other. Not a single thing the right has proposed is going to change that. Kids don’t join gangs because they’re unemployed, they do it before they ever enter the labor force. We need better schools and we need more community programs to provide alternatives. We need fewer guns on the street and we need a complete change in police culture because when police behave like an occupying army, people need to look elsewhere for protection.

      Cutting taxes for the rich doesn’t keep kids out of gangs, neither does grabbing women by the pussy or giving polluters a free pass to dump toxic sludeg. They’re not shooting people in frustration at being forced to treat homosexuals as if they’re fully human members of society and they’re not doing it because they’re somehow being prevented from yelling out ‘praise jaysus!’ every day in the classroom.

      Electing that turd is only going to make things worse. Think on that while you sit there in all your smugness calling other people smug. And enjoy the preview because you’re watching something that’s going to escalate to the national level. That was guaranteed when the Republicans forgot the rules of the game.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma

      The response to betray is betray, the first betrayer has behaved badly, the second has behaved rationally.

      The people who elected him took him seriously but not literally.

      And one can only hope that at least some of them suffer for it when Trump tries to do exactly what he said he would, but then they’re not the ones he’s targeting are they?

      • Feel better now? I hope so, because if there was anything in that unhinged, fact free rant having to do with ethics, I missed it. See, being an established commenter has its privileges–such jabber wouldn’t get out of moderation from a newbie.

        What nonsense. Chicago has had a gang war for years, and that proves what? It proves incompetent government, that’s what it proves. Yup, Chicago has been a Democratic stronghold since before Daley bought votes with turkeys. What exactly does that mean to you? What are “better schools”? Schools don’t do anything without competent parenting. What are “community programs”? This is just boilerplate, and it’s 70 year old boilerplate. Aren’t you embarrassed? Chicago AND its state have had one corrupt leader after another, several going to jail, and you’re blaming Republicans? This

        Cutting taxes for the rich doesn’t keep kids out of gangs, neither does grabbing women by the pussy or giving polluters a free pass to dump toxic sludeg. They’re not shooting people in frustration at being forced to treat homosexuals as if they’re fully human members of society and they’re not doing it because they’re somehow being prevented from yelling out ‘praise jaysus!’ every day in the classroom.

        …free-floating conservative hate is both incoherent and unhinged. Get help. I mean it. And the next projectile vomit gibberish like that gets erased.

        Meanwhile, you dare to write “The response to betray is betray” on an ethics site? Do you even know what ethics is? Here’s what it is: kids raised by parents who reinforce values and ethics don’t join gangs and don’t shoot people….and yes, church helps that process for a lot of people.

        I’m just going to be nice and assume you were drunk when you wrote this, and did it as the alternative to ripping off your clothes, painting yourself blue, and running outside with a dachshund strapped to your head as you sing “Leader of the Pack” in Yiddish.

        • valkygrrl

          Sometimes the choice is ethical or rational. Then where does your obligation lie?

          Play a few games of iterated prisoner’s dilemma with strangers, you’ll see that after one betray there’s only one way for the game to go.

          • I teach the prisoner’s dilemma. It’s about negotiation strategies in high stages situations with zero sum implications, not practical ethics, and is pure ends justifies the means in unrealistic abstract dilemmas. It’s like the boxer who bet against himself as insurance in case he lost. Ethics has to be practical, but if its only based on outcomes, its no longer ethics. As I would assume you know, and are just choosing to ignore.

            • valkygrrl

              But the two party system is the prisoner’s dilemma. If one party chooses betray and the other does not you’ve effectively created one party rule.

              Ethics has to be situational and it has to offer a rational choice. The first party to betray has been unethical since the best outcome for everyone is when both parties cooperate. The betrayed has has all other options taken away, it’s zugswang. Cooperate and you’ve rewarded unethical behavior when you had another option and guaranteed that you will always be betrayed. Betray and you continue the cycle but at least you’ve acted rationally.

              Even if we leave aside past obstruction, Republicans chose betray with Merrick Garland, thus working with Trump becomes a completely irrational choice. Thus protests, thus people refusing to consider giving Trump a chance. There was no other way this could play out once Trump won.

              • “But the two party system is the prisoner’s dilemma. If one party chooses betray and the other does not you’ve effectively created one party rule.” I don’t think you understand the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It has nothing to do with political parties, and one party cannot betray the other. They are adversaries, not just competitors, until the election is over. They are also not entirely acting in self-interest.

                “Ethics has to be situational”—no, that’s just not true. There are well-vetted ethical systems that are designed to apply to most situations.

                “It has to offer a rational choice”–what? How can you say that after this election? What was the post on zugswang about? Ethics often offers no clear ethical choice, so you do the best you can.

                Are you just saying in an incredibly convoluted way that the parties have an ethical obligation to cooperate and compromise? Yes, indeed they do. However, despite the lies, it has been the President and his party that have simply drawn a series of lines in the sand. Obama has not been willing to compromise. He has, we know, barely deigned to meet with Mitch McConnell, and he double-crossed Speaker Boehner on a “grand bargain” Even partisans like Chris Matthews admit that in this key aspect of the Presidency, Obama has been a non-participant. A competent President, for example, could have used the ACA provisions to bargain for all sorts of other agenda items, rather than insist on a version that couldn’t get a single GOP vote.

                I agree that stonewalling Garland was stupid, especially knowing (they thought) that Hillary was likely to win. But, you see, it worked. And it was still just politics—ugly politics, but a piece with how Obama has treated the party, by appointing Susan Rice, for example.

                • valkygrrl

                  Just politics? You’re offering Tessio’s excuse while telling me I’m wrong for saying the game has to play out betray for betray? It worked alright, and it was the pebble that started the landslide that ended the republic.

                  The ACA was an attempt at compromise. Democrats wanted single payer, instead he offered the Heritage foundation plan, the Romney plan, the Bob Dole plan. That was an offer to the republicans, they didn’t want to participate, they wanted to stonewall. I’d have given up on them too, refusing their own plan because it might give Obama a victory.

                  Are you just saying in an incredibly convoluted way that the parties have an ethical obligation to cooperate and compromise

                  They did. They no longer do. When one party chooses betray, there’s only one rational response. Ethics requires choices, they no longer exist.

                  • Politics is politics, and is outside the realm of mainstream ethics..as is negotiation. Your argument is cyclical. Tessio’s Excuse is accurate for the mob. Politics has its own ethical rules, like lie to me once in a deal, and I won’t deal again. And that has to be enforced. On the other hand, grudges have to have an expiration date.

                  • This is gibberish, and terrible ethics, AND irrational. The parties have an ethical obligation to cooperate and compromise, because they have an obligation to govern. And that obligation doesn’t change. It isn’t about them. It’s about the nation.

                  • Phlinn

                    Were Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, or the Heritage Foundation in congress when Obamacare came down?

        • What nonsense. Chicago has had a gang war for years, and that proves what? It proves incompetent government, that’s what it proves. Yup, Chicago has been a Democratic stronghold since before Daley bought votes with turkeys.

          The Chicago municipal leadership has been profiting from gang crime since before the first time the Cubs won the World Series. Why would they put an end to gangs?

          Just remember exactly who took down Al Capone.

    • valkygrrl

      Just to be clear, wherever you have two factions, you’re playing prisoner’s dilemma and whenever one side betrays there is only one rational move for the other side.

      If my explanation was unclear then watch The Godfather. Vito is approached, refuses and offer but wishes the man well, follows the normal rules of things. Then he’s shot (betray). Santino goes to war (betray). Attempt to finish the job on Vito (betray). Michael shoots two involved people (betray). Santino is killed (betray). Vito tries to settle things (cooperate in appearance) but this is iterated so you know the other side betrays and can’t be trusted. Actual move is Michael takes everyone out (betray for last round, old system gone, new equilibrium established, new game starts.)

      The only way out is for the original betrayer to accept a betray or three and then cooperate in the future.

  2. Alexander Cheezem

    I’m going to share my own reaction post — from Facebook — here. It’s by no means complete — causation, as I remarked in one of my replies to the ensuing comments, is complex — but this was posted shortly after the election was called, and not all of the numbers had come in yet (as I recall). As I think, I understand more and more… and my emotions have changed. I’m past fury now, and well into terror — mostly because I’m worried about what a gigantic man-baby like Trump will do with the nuclear codes.

    That said, here’s the post:

    For the record, my first reaction to learning the results of the Presidential election was simply to be sick. I’m still nauseous. My first *emotional* reaction was fury.

    And no, not at Trump and his supporters. My fury was reserved for Clinton and the Democratic Party.

    They had two responsibilities this year, and they bombed both of them. The first? To nominate a strong candidate capable of earning support from both “sides” and helping to heal the divides that have been created over the course of Obama’s presidency. The second? To put the welfare of the country — and the democratic process — ahead of their own petty games and self-interests.

    They failed miserably on both counts. Hillary was one of the single least popular, and thus weakest, candidates in history — only Trump even comes close — and their conduct was openly corrupt to an extent that even I find hard to truly believe.

    If they’d actually cared about this country more than their political games, they would have viewed things like *being under an active FBI investigation* as disqualifying. They didn’t.

    If they’d been willing to put the democratic process ahead of their poltiical games… you know, I’m not even sure where to start, but the tipping point for me was when Hillary *didn’t even wait a full day* from when Debbie Wasserman Schultz was outed from her position as party chair for trying to rig the primaries in Hillary’s favor to hire her on to her campaign. More recently, there’s the Donna Brazile/CNN thing… which was *also* about trying to rig the election (or at least the debates).

    So no, I don’t blame the Republicans for this fiasco. I blame the people who are supposed to hold the Republicans in check.

  3. joed68

    From a retired SEAL friend’s Facebook page (Steve Robinson):

    .
    Dear Democrats and Liberals,
    -I’m noticing that a lot of you aren’t graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful, hurtful, and even threatening comments about those of us who voted for Trump than you offered before the election.
    -Now that the Electoral College has now seemingly turned and bit you on the A$$ the same Electoral College which you as a group so widely celebrated in past elections after benefiting from the “win” it afforded to you, and you are widely demanding its abolishment!
    -Some of you have apparently been “triggered” by events and situations beyond your capability to cope, and as a result you are posting how “sick” you feel about the results, how “threatened” and “endangered” you feel… and how terribly “empowered” must be those who dislike your politics and your attitudes, and how they must all be ready to take violence to the next level against you.
    – So How did this happen you ask?
    -“You” created “US” – the Silent Majority.
    You created “us” when you attacked our freedom of speech.
    You created “us” when you attacked our right to bear arms.
    You created “us” when you attacked our religious beliefs.
    You created “us” when you called us “DEPLORABLES”
    You created “us” when you chose to pointedly ignore criminal conduct by your political representatives and your candidate, when ensuring that any of “us” who acted in an identically criminal manner were treated swiftly to the harshest possible justice.
    You created “us” when you constantly referred to us as racists.
    You created “us” when you constantly called us xenophobic.
    You created “us” when you consistently declined to even acknowledge that attacks against our nation and our culture are presently concentrated within the ranks of a radical philosophy which openly opposed nearly all aspects of our cultural way of life, masquerading as a “religion of peace”.
    You created “us” when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
    You created “us” when you attempted to disarm us, and to deny our ability to protect ourselves, our families, and our well being against crazed attackers.
    You created “us” when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
    You created “us” when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
    You created “us” when you attacked our flag.
    You created “us” when you degraded and downgraded our military forces to ineffective numbers and tied their hands in warfare overseas.
    You created “us” when you ignored the promises made to recruit citizens to the military, and treated foreigners and illegal immigrants with more compassion than that which you showed to the men and women who served in our armed forces.
    You created “us” when you confused women’s rights with feminism.
    You created “us” when you began to emasculate men.
    You created “us” when you decided to make our children soft.
    You created “us” when you decided that your progressive ideals were the only acceptable way of life in this nation.
    You created “us” when you attacked our way of life.
    You created “us” when you decided to let our government get out of control.
    You created “us” when you supported and encouraged a heavily biased, unapologetic media – a media that fed you “feel good” pablum stories while vehemently denouncing our own views and completely ignoring any modicum of objectivity.
    And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
    And we did it with ballots, not bullets.~ NOTHING to be scared of folks except your brainwashed imaginations!!

    • zoebrain

      Poor petals.

      • joed68

        Not sure what you mean.

        • zoebrain

          It’s a tantrum.

          • Yup. And an unusually embarrassing one from the same party that publicly worried that Trump supporters would riot after Hillary triumphed.

            • joed68

              Rioting Trump supporters? Seems very unlikely. On the other hand, what are we seeing from the left as we speak? Riots, people getting beat up by mobs when they assume that their victim is a Trump supporter, school walkouts, the deafening cacophony of all sorts of sniveling, many promises of all sorts of shenanigans from now until inauguration day and beyond. In short, lots of poor pedals and butthurt. Along with the even louder accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia (did I miss any? Seems like there’s a new one once a week), Trump voters, many of whom defected from the DNC, are being asked “why?”. The above isn’t what I’d list exactly; I’d trim it down, eliminate a few, and add others, but it’s not my list. Just like Michael Moore warned, Trump’s election would be one huge pushback from the many millions of people who suffered under this administration’s rule for 8 long years.

          • zoebrain

            A few genuine concerns, important to address so don’t dismiss them, and a whole pile of butthurt. Making children soft… Emasculating men… And worst of all, calling the KKKers and Nazis amongst them “deplorable”.

            “I’m NOT a bigot, and if you keep on calling me that, well, I’ll start being one, so there!,”

            Poor petals.

            I have enough hurt feewings crap on the left to deal with, without getting it from the right too. Grow up, and we can start dealing with the few real issues raised in that long list of “waaah!”. Policy issues. Stop blaming other people for your own insecurities and failings. If you’re a failure, then OK, I’ll do what I can to give you every opportunity, but after that, it’s up to you.

            Now you have the presidency, both houses of congress, soon the SCOTUS.. who are you going to blame then for your failure? “Look what you made me do!” And continue to feel aggrieved.

            Look, you don’t have to explain or try to justify yourselves. You won. Get over it. If you feel you have to continually justify what you’re doing, that’s called “guilt”. Adults figure out that that’s because they’ve made a mistake ( I made a HUGE one recently in a comment, that Jack kindly corrected without rancour), and try to rectify it.

            Maybe I’m short tempered, having had to deal with this all the time from so many who would otherwise be allies. Case in point – antiTrump rallies, saying the electoral college is unfair.. look, those were the rules. By all means work to change them in future if you think the system is broken. The only thing worse than a sore loser is this bunch of sore winners.

            • Who is this “you” you are imagining? When Occupy was in full bloom, lots of hangers on—anarchists, communists, weirdos—hitchhiked on the train. Nobody claimed they were the train…that happens. But when the same thing happened with Trump, all of a sudden, because it was a good tactic, every Trump supporter was David Dukes, so by extension every Republican was the KKK. They had, and have every right to see that as a smear and ad hominem. Every right in the world. Trump said that it was madness to let illegal immigrants come here and stay here, and among the reasons was that there were a lot of criminals in THAT basket. That was turned into “all Mexicans are murderers and rapists” to marginalize Trump, and then the racists who do hate Mexicans used the misrepresented platform as their own. Not Trump’s fault, except that he can’t speak intelligently.

            • joed68

              “I’m NOT a bigot, and if you keep on calling me that, well, I’ll start being one, so there!,”
              So, voting for Trump constitutes being a bigot? I rest my case.

            • joed68

              Now you have the presidency, both houses of congress, soon the SCOTUS.. who are you going to blame then for your failure? “Look what you made me do!” And continue to feel aggrieved.

              Wow, does this sound familiar.

    • valkygrrl

      Typical abuser language. Why did you make me hit you? You just make me so mad sometimes.

      http://www.laurashouse.org/lhteen/redflags/warning-signs

      • Captain Obvious

        When the wife has spent 8 years beating the husband, I tend to not get too worked up if the husband finally lands a solid right hook to back her the hell off.

  4. Other Bill

    “[W]hat epic gall to call Trump’s 58% of the white vote proof of racism, when Obama’s 93% black vote in 2012, after a disastrous first term (though the second term made it look good by comparison), was happily regarded as “loyalty[.]”

    Took the words right out of my mouth. And why are the press using quotes around the word “riots” when reporting on riots which they call “protests?”

  5. wyogranny

    The ability of people to self-justify and demonize the “other” is truly unlimited.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s