I mean, they are. With the caveat that the republican policy would be just as deadly, if not more so.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"All Trump Voters Are Nazi Scum" (But Seriously Though...)
- Thread starter SOLDIER
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
By this logic, every Democratic voter is morally complicit in the state-sanctioned murder of Afghan children.
Ah yes, one of Obama's more controversial campaign promises.
Yep
Next
exactly
By this logic, every Democratic voter is morally complicit in the state-sanctioned murder of Afghan children.
got anything else?
Aaronrules380
Member
The problems beig exclusive to rural whites is irrelevant. Saying the policies you prefer helps rural whites and thus you care about them is flawed logic of the main reason you support those policies is that they benefit you as wellI mean, if you count bringing back the coal industry and other wishful thinking, I guess so.
If we're talking about large scale issues like the death of retail and urbanization, those are in no way exclusive to "rural whites". And we "liberals" are the ones voting to fix their shit, so...
By this logic, every Democratic voter is morally complicit in the state-sanctioned murder of Afghan children.
Well if the Democratic voter voted for someone that campaigned on the murder of Afghan children and made that a very big focal point of their campaign, then your comparison would make some sense.
Sadly, it doesn't.
I myself would like to know which progressive causes are inherently anti-poor rural white, because as much as the cultural differences piss me the fuck off you can't just leave people to wither. There's fair arguments to make about going full speed ahead on globalization without considering or reacting fast enough to the consequences, but the only people who I see putting out realistic solutions for this demographic- namely infrastructure and retraining initiatives to bring new energy industries to dying towns, as well as bolstering welfare and wage standards in the short term- are the Dems. Republicans are instead talking about bringing coal jobs back and stripping us of regulatory protections to protect the environment, while doing anything to increase the minimum wage is not even on the table. If we don't care about poor rural whites, then Republicans must fucking despise them.
There's a difference between active malicious intent and apathy towards your fellow person. Do I think that every single Trump voter was actively malicious towards all of us feeling the pain? No. But they did say "I don't care about you. I care about me." and they deserve to forever feel that scarlet letter of selfish indifference.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
How could we all forget the time Obama promised to kill all the Afghan children in his campaign? Man the left really is just like the right, huh.
I never said that was a good thing. It's awful. Just don't claim moral high ground when you don't care about them either
We absolutely have the higher ground. The people we vote for aren't trying to hurt rural whites. The people they're voting for make hurting minorities part of their platform.
I love this "both sides" bullshit.
How could we all forget the time Obama promised to kill all the Afghan children in his campaign? Man the left really is just like the right, huh.
forgot to use #bothsides
Lightning_Roller
Banned
I myself would like to know which progressive causes are inherently anti-poor rural white, because as much as the cultural differences piss me the fuck off you can't just leave people to wither. There's fair arguments to make about going full speed ahead on globalization without considering or reacting fast enough to the consequences, but the only people who I see putting out realistic solutions for this demographic- namely infrastructure and retraining initiatives to bring new energy industries to dying towns, as well as bolstering welfare and wage standards in the short term- are the Dems. Republicans are instead talking about bringing coal jobs back and stripping us of regulatory protections to protect the environment, while doing anything to increase the minimum wage is not even on the table. If we don't care about poor rural whites, then Republicans must fucking despise them.
This. The Republican party is literally the legion of doom.
Aaronrules380
Member
The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apatheticI myself would like to know which progressive causes are inherently anti-poor rural white, because as much as the cultural differences piss me the fuck off you can't just leave people to wither. There's fair arguments to make about going full speed ahead on globalization without considering or reacting fast enough to the consequences, but the only people who I see putting out realistic solutions for this demographic- namely infrastructure and retraining initiatives to bring new industries to dying towns, as well as bolstering welfare and wage standards in the short term- are the Dems. Republicans are instead talking about bringing coal jobs back and stripping us of regulatory protections to protect the environment, while doing anything to increase the minimum wage is not even on the table. If we don't care about poor rural whites, then Republicans must fucking despise them.
CrackPebbles
Member
Voting for trump at minimum means you are ok with racism, homophobia, misogyny and being willfully ignorant. They might be your friends and family, but lets call a spade a spade
.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The problems beig exclusive to rural whites is irrelevant. Saying the policies you prefer helps rural whites and thus you care about them is flawed logic of the main reason you support those policies is that they benefit you as well
...
Do you want people to only support policies that only benefit poor rural whites and no one else? Because unless you specifically bar minorities from them it's simply not possible
Aaronrules380
Member
I never said both sides are the same. They absolutely aren't. That doesn't mean everyone who voted Trump is evil and everyone who voted liberal a saintWe absolutely have the higher ground. The people we vote for aren't trying to hurt rural whites. The people they're voting for make hurting minorities part of their platform.
I love this "both sides" bullshit.
The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apathetic
except for those liberal policies that want to improve job training, education and healthcare, but yeah besides those small things, sure
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Well if the Democratic voter voted for someone that campaigned on the murder of Afghan children and made that a very big focal point of their campaign, then your comparison would make some sense.
Sadly, it doesn't.
This might be a plausible excuse for 2008, but by 2012 it should have been very clear what the Obama administration's foreign policy methods were. Why is the fact he didn't explicitly campaign on it something that morally distinguishes it? It was still something that any reasonably informed person would have been aware he intended to do if re-elected.
And no, I'm not saying both sides. One side is quite clearly worse. I'm pointing out that nobody approves of every single policy choice of the politician that they vote for.
ForsakenLotus
Member
I guess my question would be does calling Trump voters Nazi's, or racists, or whatever, help? We have a serious problem of polarization in this country, and as frustrating as it is identity politics isn't going to bridge that gap (it will do the opposite) and it won't make this country better. Honestly, I think it will actually lead to more people being strongly against a general progressive platform or ideology.
A not completely terrible analogy is the debate on what to call terrorists like ISIS. Many jingoistic conservatives want to call them Islamic terrorists or some version, while more rational people understand that by directly tying the religion to the act of terrorism, nuance is lost on many folks and the entire religion, which also means and entire part of the world, feels wrongly vilified.
So I go back to my original point: Whether or not you feel justified in these labels does it actually accomplish anything positive for the country? Or is it just selfish catharsis through moral shaming?
So we are clear, I'm strongly opposed to Trump and I acknowledge there is truth to the assessments of many of his supporters. Just so there isn't confusion.
A not completely terrible analogy is the debate on what to call terrorists like ISIS. Many jingoistic conservatives want to call them Islamic terrorists or some version, while more rational people understand that by directly tying the religion to the act of terrorism, nuance is lost on many folks and the entire religion, which also means and entire part of the world, feels wrongly vilified.
So I go back to my original point: Whether or not you feel justified in these labels does it actually accomplish anything positive for the country? Or is it just selfish catharsis through moral shaming?
So we are clear, I'm strongly opposed to Trump and I acknowledge there is truth to the assessments of many of his supporters. Just so there isn't confusion.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apathetic
As somebody who grew up in rural Michigan I can say apathy isn't what I witnessed when people spoke about minorities. Rather it was just outright racism, bigotry, and hatred.
Muppet of a Man
Member
I totally get where you're coming from, OP. My grandma also chose to vote to enable a racist to run the country because she decided that wasn't so bad as to be worth voting against her fucking tax cut, and I also get very offended when people point this out, because she is very nice to me, which should really excuse all of that, because I am very important.
Lol, this pretty much.
No, it's just reasoning: Democratic policy would benefit them. The GOP fucks them over. The still go with the R time and time again.The problems beig exclusive to rural whites is irrelevant. Saying the policies you prefer helps rural whites and thus you care about them is flawed logic of the main reason you support those policies is that they benefit you as well
This continued display of ignorance and indoctrination is the source of derision and contempt from my side, not their mere existance or lack of acknowledgement of their problems.
I never said both sides are the same. They absolutely aren't. That doesn't mean everyone who voted Trump is evil and everyone who voted liberal a saint
"Just don't claim moral high ground when you don't care about them either"
It was very much implied with this nonsense. We absolutely have the higher ground here.
I am not going to show empathy for someone who is voting for people actively trying to negatively affect my life.
They are not ignorant about what they are doing or who they are voting for.
Lightning_Roller
Banned
No, it's just reasoning: Democratic policy would benefit them. The GOP fucks them over. The still go with the R time and time again.
This continued display of ignorance and indoctrination is the source of derision and contempt from my side, not their mere existance or lack of acknowledgement of their problems.
Not only this though, but the fact that some or most of the voter base would love to see minorities suffer, even if they suffer too. And another thing, they treat politics like sports, so they vote R just so their could win, even if we screwed over in the end. So yeah, poor rural whites and the rest of the republican voter base get my scorn all the damn time.
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
"Apathy" is one way to sugarcoat things. There is irrefutable data that this country is racist, and the racism is stronger on one end than the other. Nothing changed with Trump, the GOP and a big portion of their base are racist. Lee Atwater and Trump are more honest than their base.The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apathetic
The point is that these people are apathetic to the plight of minorities, just as many liberals are apathetic to them. You don't need to be actively against a group to be apathetic
Apathy in a vacuum is not the point here. It's apathy in regards to direct harm from the candidates we're voting on that's the issue in contention here.
Thus, I'm asking for an equivalence in platform because- even if I don't personally care about poor rural whites (and I'm gonna be honest, they're not at the top of my list in terms of priorities)- no one has demonstrated how my voting patterns have been directly instrumental in fucking them over. I voted for Obama both times and then for Hillary who, as far as I could tell, were intent on trying to implement realistic solutions to help them, or at least put that shit in their platform.
On the other side of the coin, Trump voters elected someone who wants to send more unchecked police into my community to "reinstate law and order," either because they really believe something is inherently wrong with black people or because they're so apathetic to black people that they don't particularly care to stop and think if voting for a candidate that's two steps removed from being a Grand Wizard is okay because he said "taxes" and "jobs" a whole bunch of times.
So yeah, there is a difference in how the apathy between Dems and Repubs has been contextualized by their actions, and it's disingenuous to ignore all that and put us to task because white people aren't our biggest priority.
FireApathy in a vacuum is not the point here. It's apathy in regards to direct harm from the candidates we're voting on that's the issue in contention here.
Thus, I'm asking for an equivalence in platform because- even if I don't personally care about poor rural whites (and I'm gonna be honest, they're not at the top of my list in terms of priorities)- no one has demonstrated how my voting patterns have been directly instrumental in fucking them over. I voted for Obama both times and then for Hillary who, as far as I could tell, were intent on trying to implement realistic solutions to help them, or at least put that shit in their platform.
On the other side of the coin, Trump voters elected someone who wants to send more unchecked police into my community to "reinstate law and order," either because they really believe something is inherently wrong with black people or because they're so apathetic to black people that they don't particularly care even when voting for a candidate that's two steps removed from being a Grand Wizard on the side, because hey, taxes and jobs amirite?
So yeah, there is a difference in how the apathy between Dems and Repubs has been contextualized by their actions, and it's disingenuous to ignore all that and put us to task because white people aren't our biggest priority.
Lightning_Roller
Banned
Apathy in a vacuum is not the point here. It's apathy in regards to direct harm from the candidates we're voting on that's the issue in contention here.
Thus, I'm asking for an equivalence in platform because- even if I don't personally care about poor rural whites (and I'm gonna be honest, they're not at the top of my list in terms of priorities)- no one has demonstrated how my voting patterns have been directly instrumental in fucking them over. I voted for Obama both times and then for Hillary who, as far as I could tell, were intent on trying to implement realistic solutions to help them, or at least put that shit in their platform.
On the other side of the coin, Trump voters elected someone who wants to send more unchecked police into my community to "reinstate law and order," either because they really believe something is inherently wrong with black people or because they're so apathetic to black people that they don't particularly care to stop and think if voting for a candidate that's two steps removed from being a Grand Wizard is okay because he said "taxes" and "jobs" a whole bunch of times.
So yeah, there is a difference in how the apathy between Dems and Repubs has been contextualized by their actions, and it's disingenuous to ignore all that and put us to task because white people aren't our biggest priority.
/Mic drop.
Apathy in a vacuum is not the point here. It's apathy in regards to direct harm from the candidates we're voting on that's the issue in contention here.
Thus, I'm asking for an equivalence in platform because- even if I don't personally care about poor rural whites (and I'm gonna be honest, they're not at the top of my list in terms of priorities)- no one has demonstrated how my voting patterns have been directly instrumental in fucking them over. I voted for Obama both times and then for Hillary who, as far as I could tell, were intent on trying to implement realistic solutions to help them, or at least put that shit in their platform.
On the other side of the coin, Trump voters elected someone who wants to send more unchecked police into my community to "reinstate law and order," either because they really believe something is inherently wrong with black people or because they're so apathetic to black people that they don't particularly care to stop and think if voting for a candidate that's two steps removed from being a Grand Wizard is okay because he said "taxes" and "jobs" a whole bunch of times.
So yeah, there is a difference in how the apathy between Dems and Repubs has been contextualized by their actions, and it's disingenuous to ignore all that and put us to task because white people aren't our biggest priority.
gotdamn
EdibleKnife
Member
So I go back to my original point: Whether or not you feel justified in these labels does it actually accomplish anything positive for the country? Or is it just selfish catharsis through moral shaming?
There's no moral shaming in calling a spade a spade. If you're racist, you've participated in or supported or spread ideals and policies that work to make the lives of minorities worse. If you're sexist, you've participated in or supported or spread ideals that take away women's autonomy. If you're anti-gay, you've participated in or supported or spread ideals that result in the erasure and marginalization of gay people. When I was living at the point that I thought feminism was nonsense, I was being a sexist. They're no two ways about it. That is what I was. I was also mature and self-aware enough to work to change my outlook and mindset from a sexist one to one that was considerate of women's rights and place in society. If people are willing to close themselves off because they hear words they don't like, language softening isn't going to do much. Holding back from calling a racist a racist when the entire point of their world view is that they don't think minorities are equal to them, isn't going to do much in the first place. Labeling these acts is supposed to make it clear to all of society, not just singular people, that these behaviors, acts and rhetoric they adhere to do in fact make matters worse for others, should be intolerable and changed.
I mean, they are. With the caveat that the republican policy would be just as deadly, if not more so.
Yeah I think you're both right. As citizens we're obviously partly culpable for actions our government takes in our name. We do, should on paper at least, have the power to remove troublesome elements of our government from power, whether through voting them out, jailing criminal behavior or outright rebellion and overthrowing the government. The fact we don't means that as far as we're concerned killing brown people overseas isn't a deal breaker for us and as a people we should be shamed for that. It's shameful that any party can survive killing as many as we do and that not really be a concern within our voting base.Ah yes, one of Obama's more controversial campaign promises.
That said I do still see a difference. Voting for Obama, for example, was supposed to be the antiwar vote. Like Bossking joked, those weren't campaign promises, he was going to get us out of Iraq, close Gitmo, yadda, yadda, that's what voters voted for. Clearly that didn't all happen and other things got escalated under his watch that wasn't campaigned on but with Obama nobody was outright voting for a candidate that promised to do those things.
What I find funny is that when discussing a Democratic candidate you're supposed to read between the lines and see the heinous shit s/he'd really do and with Trump you're supposed to read between the lines of his heinous shit and find the not heinous shit he'd do? Or something like that? I don't really get it. Democrats get played because the things they're promised won't be done get done and Republicans are getting played because the things they promised will get done are being attempted to get done? Is that how I'm supposed to parse this?
Realistically I suppose everyone should be aware they're getting played to some degree, that not all aspects of a campaign will, or even should, survive the move from campaign to administration intact and instead vote for people whom they feel has the best moral compass and guiding principles rather than who made the best promises. But, I have a much easier time sympathizing with a voter who voted his or her conscious for a candidate who outright promised them what they wanted and then broke that promise than I do a voter who voted for their candidate despite what they said because they figured it was all BS and are now angry that it's being followed through on.
The problems beig exclusive to rural whites is irrelevant. Saying the policies you prefer helps rural whites and thus you care about them is flawed logic of the main reason you support those policies is that they benefit you as well
Actually, no. There are definite policies which would less good for me. More progressive tax policies would almost inevitably end with me paying more taxes. I'd still vote for that because that should support programs for the less fortunate, regardless of who they are.
Abstrusity
Member
All Nazi Scum are Nazi Scum.
I don't believe Trump supporters are all Nazi Scum, but at the very least, they weren't hampered by the Nazi Scum imagery, rhetoric, and belief system.
Perhaps they did believe that Trump would help them, and jumped through hoops to get to that thought. So there could be a myriad number of fixes we can put in place to help them out -- because they are suffering, and whether it's their own damn fault or not is not the issue.
There's only one fix for Nazi Scum.
I don't believe Trump supporters are all Nazi Scum, but at the very least, they weren't hampered by the Nazi Scum imagery, rhetoric, and belief system.
Perhaps they did believe that Trump would help them, and jumped through hoops to get to that thought. So there could be a myriad number of fixes we can put in place to help them out -- because they are suffering, and whether it's their own damn fault or not is not the issue.
There's only one fix for Nazi Scum.
This might be a plausible excuse for 2008, but by 2012 it should have been very clear what the Obama administration's foreign policy methods were. Why is the fact he didn't explicitly campaign on it something that morally distinguishes it? It was still something that any reasonably informed person would have been aware he intended to do if re-elected.
And no, I'm not saying both sides. One side is quite clearly worse. I'm pointing out that nobody approves of every single policy choice of the politician that they vote for.
Except, you know, that little fact, that the vast majority of the policies promoted by Trump are in fact racist? Like that's literally all Trump has, he has no actual policies.
Why do you say this? Did liberals vote for an anti-poor, rural white candidate?
Hillary was absolutely an anti-poor candidate, even if Trump was worse. Her lack of strong economic advocacy crippled her campaign when many Obama voters stayed home.
Hillary didn't have the same positive, forward-looking image that Obama enjoyed. Her policy proposals were much more proactive than voters believed, but she didn't really try to advertise them. Poor messaging really, really hurt her.
This might be a plausible excuse for 2008, but by 2012 it should have been very clear what the Obama administration's foreign policy methods were. Why is the fact he didn't explicitly campaign on it something that morally distinguishes it? It was still something that any reasonably informed person would have been aware he intended to do if re-elected.
And no, I'm not saying both sides. One side is quite clearly worse. I'm pointing out that nobody approves of every single policy choice of the politician that they vote for.
Ehh, Americans have no real reason to care about the violence needed to support our hegemony. Our entire mainstream press works very to justify American dominance and divert attention away from the brutality this necessitates. Kids dying halfway across the world is also such a distant problem that most Obama/Clinton voters probably weren't aware that their candidates were bald-faced imperialists.
Democrats: may or may not actually care about poor rural whites but their policies actually help regardless.
Republicans: claim to care about poor rural whites but their policies actively fuck them over in favor of rich urban whites. But hey at least they're really racist.
Certainly a hard choice.
Republicans: claim to care about poor rural whites but their policies actively fuck them over in favor of rich urban whites. But hey at least they're really racist.
Certainly a hard choice.
ForsakenLotus
Member
There's no moral shaming in calling a spade a spade. If you're racist, you've participated in or supported or spread ideals and policies that work to make the lives of minorities worse. If you're sexist, you've participated in or supported or spread ideals that take away women's autonomy. If you're anti-gay, you've participated in or supported or spread ideals that result in the erasure and marginalization of gay people. When I was living at the point that I thought feminism was nonsense, I was being a sexist. They're no two ways about it. That is what I was. I was also mature and self-aware enough to work to change my outlook and mindset from a sexist one to one that was considerate of women's rights and place in society. If people are willing to close themselves off because they hear words they don't like, language softening isn't going to do much. Holding back from calling a racist a racist when the entire point of their world view is that they don't think minorities are equal to them, isn't going to do much in the first place. Labeling these acts is supposed to make it clear to all of society, not just singular people, that these behaviors, acts and rhetoric they adhere to do in fact make matters worse for others, should be intolerable and changed.
So you completely missed the point of my post.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
And no, I'm not saying both sides. One side is quite clearly worse. I'm pointing out that nobody approves of every single policy choice of the politician that they vote for.
What are some of Trump's legitimate policies worthy of support?
EdibleKnife
Member
So you completely missed the point of my post.
Nope. You asked does it do anything positive and it does. It keeps society honest about what is wrong and what is right. What should be intolerable and what's acceptable.
hydrophilic attack
Member
#notalltrumpsupporters
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
No, there's no political benefit to calling Trump voters what they are. You want their votes next time so you downplay what they've done in the hopes that they won't vote out of spite again next time.
Fine
Fine
No Trump supporter would be inviting someone who looks like me to their table.The views in this thread remind me of the days when pushy atheists ruled the internet. You all sound just as fun around the dinner table.
These nazi family members no doubt love you and keep inviting you to the table just so they have the honor of being demeaned by someone so intellectually and morally superior. Maybe worry about those bonds for once.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
This might be a plausible excuse for 2008, but by 2012 it should have been very clear what the Obama administration's foreign policy methods were. Why does the fact he didn't explicitly campaign on it something that morally distinguishes it? It was still something that any reasonably informed person would have been aware he intended to do if re-elected.
And no, I'm not saying both sides. One side is quite clearly worse. I'm pointing out that nobody approves of every single policy choice of the politician that they vote for.
We have a pretty good idea and plenty of data for understanding what drove many of his supporters to vote for him, what drove that insane fervor, and brought certain groups out of the woodwork. We all saw the polls concerning certain things during the election that always showed just how fucked in the head the majority of those supporters were. He was an indefensible buffoon almost all the time, laying it out quite clearly for these folks and they ate it all up. I'm sure some even projected far more evil things on to him in order to drive up their own support.
This "whataboutobama" shit is just so tired, and really doesn't play.
Funnily enough Trump and his voters conceivably fall into both those categories. Otherwise I'm not really sure what you're getting at.Realistically I suppose everyone should be aware they're getting played to some degree, that not all aspects of a campaign will, or even should, survive the move from campaign to administration intact and instead vote for people whom they feel has the best moral compass and guiding principles rather than who made the best promises. But, I have a much easier time sympathizing with a voter who voted his or her conscious for a candidate who outright promised them what they wanted and then broke that promise than I do a voter who voted for their candidate despite what they said because they figured it was all BS and are now angry that it's being followed through on.
I'll say this though: voting your conscience on its face isn't something to be applauded.
What are some of Trump's legitimate policies worthy of support?
Trump's infrastructure goals are legitimately good and his intentions to curb unemployment are, on paper, noble. But this is a "Hitler building the Autobahn" scenario: even if these proposals would help people, they are not meant for the benefit of the whole of society.
Trump's made no effort to discuss problems of infrastructure and unemployment as specific to poor black and Native American communities (where they are most acute) and mostly seems interested in fixing these problems to strengthen our economic standing versus China and Europe. By trying to limit immigration and forcibly deport so many undocumented people, Trump also ensures that these benefits are enjoyed by a smaller number of people than they otherwise would be.
For some funny reason, Trump's jobs plan helps the northern white communities that mostly voted for him at the expense of programs meant to help minorities.
The views in this thread remind me of the days when pushy atheists ruled the internet. You all sound just as fun around the dinner table.
These nazi family members no doubt love you and keep inviting you to the table just so they have the honor of being demeaned by someone so intellectually and morally superior. Maybe worry about those bonds for once.
Thankfully my family doesn't have those utterly useless pieces of shit. If it did, FUCK THEM. I do not care about being at the table and having "bonds" with scum that hates me for being who I am and denies the humanity of the people I care about. "Family" is not a motherfucking free pass to be human shit.
Garrett Hawke
Member
Who is this woman? Where is the rest of the video? Can I give her a hug?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.