• 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.

"All Trump Voters Are Nazi Scum" (But Seriously Though...)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because when you explain things simply and as a matter of fact, they'll ignore you at best, at worst they'll resent you for speaking down to them. These communities don't want your investment they'll shun it, because all they'll see is people that they don't like also benefiting from said investment.
Will some think that way? Sure. Does that mean we need to stop doing anything to help communities that are losing jobs and have a worse future? I don't think so.

You are acting like all Trump voters are one block of people with exactly the same thoughts, actions and ideas. And that we should treat them as such. I don't agree with that.

The progressive agenda is one of investing in people, providing education, providing opportunities for all. No, that will not work out for all, and I'm sure it is a lost cause in some cases, maybe in a lot of cases. But does that mean we should just drop it all and say: fuck these people?
 
Because when you explain things simply and as a matter of fact, they'll ignore you at best, at worst they'll resent you for speaking down to them. These communities don't want your investment they'll shun it, because all they'll see is people that they don't like also benefiting from said investment.

I wonder if it would be an effective tool to ask the question, "What amount of blaming others would it take for you to jump off the Trump train?"

And follow up, "I'll hold you to that, and I expect you will hold yourself to that."
 

Toxi

Banned
Blame the electorate for losing an election, continue to lose elections.

A lesson from every democracy ever in operation.
The electorate needs to change. Ignoring this means we will continue to see unqualified lunatics gain followings every time there isn't a charismatic opposition.

There have been far weaker Presidential campaigns in the past than Hillary Clinton's. So why don't we have a long history of Donald Trumps? Because it's not just about the Democrats fielding a weak candidate or bungling strategy.

Education, media, take your pick. Something needs to happen or else this will keep happening.
 
Will some think that way? Sure. Does that mean we need to stop doing anything to help communities that are losing jobs and have a worse future? I don't think so.

You are acting like all Trump voters are one block of people with exactly the same thoughts, actions and ideas. And that we should treat them as such. I don't agree with that.

The progressive agenda is one of investing in people, providing education, providing opportunities for all. No, that will not work out for all, and I'm sure it is a lost cause in some cases, maybe in a lot of cases. But does that mean we should just drop it all and say: fuck these people?

The information is out there freely given without restriction. It's their collective willful choice that they outright ignore and/or reject it. So yeah fuck 'em, I'll be over here helping those directly affected by their dumbass choices.
 

Ms.Galaxy

Member
there was that whole thread where people were cheering that entire coal mining communities would be economically devastated - not because the posters hated coal, but because those people are probably republicans/Trump voters

that kind of weird disregard for other citizens and economic classes flies directly in the face of progressive views and it's disheartening.

We weren't celebrating at their downfall, we were face palming at their stupidity that they keep falling themselves into. Let me ask you a question, why should we care about them? A majority of them always vote against policies that would help them.

Clinton was direct and clear, those jobs are never coming back and we need to invest in alternative energies in order to build jobs to replace the old mining ones. They didn't want that, they think they can live a comfortable life mining coal while the rest of the world is moving past it at a breakneck speed. They keep doing this to themselves. No matter how hard we tell them the reality, they don't want to listen.

At what point are people such as yourself going to realize that these people are never, ever, going to change. Because we've been at this for decades. The last 8 years was more than enough to show how much they don't want our help. They do not listen, they do not accept the changing environment nor the reality around them. We offer our hand and they always bite back. So tell me, why should we care? At this point, I rather let them fall into their own devices and help those who actually are willing to accept it.

"You can't help someone if they won't help themselves", as the old saying goes.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
cutting off strangers and acquaintances, okay, fine. but cutting off family and friends over this stuff seems very rash. you would be doing real world harm to years or decades old relationships. you would actually damage your side's case for tolerance. you would be acting just like the one you decry. calling people idiots and ignoring them is petty and childish. you wont change someone's mind by calling them an idiot. this is some kind of violence, an identity violence in some way. what does it accomplish to label someone without their consent?

furthermore it is privilege denial. yes if those people are in your family, you grew up hearing it, and it doesn't matter if you cut off your uncle when you are in your 20s if you have been hearing him for decades already. that stuff is in you. it is in all of us. it is ok, you don't have to hate yourself for that, it happens to everyone. it is pervasive in society. we can rise above it, all of us.

How can you be serious? How am I "acting just like the one you decry" by saying: Your vote has real life consequences, I'm not accepting your stance on this and your stance is so bad that I'd rather not associate with you if you won't change it anytime soon.

Identity violence? Are you for real? Labeling them without their consent? Sorry, but if you vote for a racist, you are a racist supporter. How this logical conclusion is in any way not accurate is beyond me.

If those family members won't change their mind, there is literally no point. No point. A relationship doesn't work that way. Distancing yourself from that will not only stop you from having to manage a relationship that isn't working, it will also send the message to the other person that his stance is so bad that close people would stop associating with them.

And maybe they'd finally take a minute to think a bit about that. Granted, just maybe.
 
The electorate needs to change. Ignoring this means we will continue to see unqualified lunatics gain followings every time there isn't a charismatic opposition.

There have been far weaker Presidential campaigns in the past than Hillary Clinton's. So why don't we have a long history of Donald Trumps? Because it's not just about the Democrats fielding a weak candidate or bungling strategy.

Education, media, take your pick. Something needs to happen or else this will keep happening.

Things that could happen:

1) That
2) You'll keep losing elections.

2 is what it is going to happen.
 
They are ignorant, racist, deplorable, sexist and some I assume are good people.


At the end of the day there isn't much of a difference between a bigot and a bigot supporter.
 

Oppo

Member
if this weeks This American Life is to be believed, virtually all of them were energized by "immigration issues", and not much else.
 
The information is out there freely given without restriction. It's their collective willful choice that they outright ignore and/or reject it. So yeah fuck 'em, I'll be over here helping those directly affected by their dumbass choices.
Nothing says both can't happen. I'm glad there are people that are fighting Trump and the terrible things he wants to do.

That does not mean that for the next election, it might not be useful to try and get the votes away from him again by reaching out to communities that have now voted for him.

Trump voters now think the economy is doing great so I don't think it matters much what we do to "help communities that are losing jobs." (with unemployment at less than 5%).

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Trump_voter_poll_summary.pdf

(page 8).
So you are saying we should just let certain places rot away without any attempt to get those people into other jobs, provide education for them to help transfer to other sectors?

I thought those were the platforms Clinton ran on. Those were the arguments put forward why she would be better for those communities. But now we need to abandon all that? I seriously don't get that.

So you have nothing besides shitposting "This is why Trump won!" for everything you disagree with?

Guess I was wasting my time.
If you want to simplify it that much, then the arguments from the other side are nothing more then "Trump voters are idiots, fuck them."

See how this does not provide for an actual productive discussion?

if this weeks This American Life is to be believed, virtually all of them were energized by "immigration issues", and not much else.
The immigration debate is tied to a ton of things, like the economy and safety. Not for the right reasons most of the time, but you can't put it in a vacuum like that.
 
I thought the "Economic Anxiety!" hobby horse was killed some months ago, but it's back again. I guess many people can't sympathize with those who sat back (or voted R) because they Couldn't Get Excited about the Dem candidate. I was plenty excited about NOT letting a bigoted sex criminal imbecile get the most powerful seat it in the world, but that's not enough for some white people (most of which were voting to NOT have a Nasty Woman in charge anyway.) I really do think it's primarily due to the WWC's attraction to an Exciting Outsider figure, more than any actual economic policy.

I think there's room for debate over money in the D party, but rejection of them because of that is just another symptom of the tendency to leave Republicans out of the comparison because "we can't expect them NOT to be evil", as if they aren't humans accountable for their own actions.
 

tuxfool

Banned
Will some think that way? Sure. Does that mean we need to stop doing anything to help communities that are losing jobs and have a worse future? I don't think so.

You are acting like all Trump voters are one block of people with exactly the same thoughts, actions and ideas. And that we should treat them as such. I don't agree with that.

The progressive agenda is one of investing in people, providing education, providing opportunities for all. No, that will not work out for all, and I'm sure it is a lost cause in some cases, maybe in a lot of cases. But does that mean we should just drop it all and say: fuck these people?

As I've noted in the past, I'll say "sure, they're not a monolithic bloc", but it always is a question of bandwidth. The amount of effort you expend in trying to talk to these people doesn't justify the gains you get out of it. It is better to target those that are more predisposed to actually listening, your conversion rates are better there.
 
So you have nothing besides shitposting "This is why Trump won!" for everything you disagree with?

Guess I was wasting my time.

If you consider the fundamental aspects of democracy to be shitposting, then I suppose you are wasting your time with politics.
 
As I've noted in the past, I'll say "sure, they're not a monolithic bloc", but it always is a question of bandwidth. The amount of effort you expend in trying to talk to these people doesn't justify the gains you get out of it. It is better to target those that are more predisposed to actually listening, your conversion rates are better there.
That's fair, and something that comes close to a remark I made earlier in the thread. I would talk about these issues to family instead of just removing them from my life (as long as they also actually engage in the discussion and are open to it), but would ignore people on Facebook because it is not productive.

But I think that on a national level, it will be productive for Democrats to try and win some of these communities that now voted Trump. That is pretty much all I'm saying.
 

Oppo

Member
The immigration debate is tied to a ton of things, like the economy and safety. Not for the right reasons most of the time, but you can't put it in a vacuum like that.

listen to the episode. in this particular case it's referring to what conservatives responded to, when asked about issues. i'm not trying to simplify, just pointing out that they couldn't get these folks to sign a petition about the economy or Obamacare, but when Amnesty came up they all hopped-to.

pretty sure the R party has actually abandoned all policy and basically is desperately clinging to their base's every twitch, every line spoken in public that somehow gets a cheer, that's the policy now. Trump makes sense in this fucked up context.
 
Nothing says both can't happen. I'm glad there are people that are fighting Trump and the terrible things he wants to do.

That does not mean that for the next election, it might not be useful to try and get the votes away from him again by reaching out to communities that have now voted for him.


So you are saying we should just let certain places rot away without any attempt to get those people into other jobs, provide education for them to help transfer to other sectors?

I thought those were the platforms Clinton ran on. Those were the arguments put forward why she would be better for those communities. But now we need to abandon all that? I seriously don't get that.

What's not to get? You've quoted my post which answers this question you've inquired. The information is out there freely given, it's their collective willful choice that they choose to ignore/reject it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

We will still invest in renewable energy (whenever we have the chance/power to do so) and the jobs needed to create these artificial power sources will still be created, again, it's up to them to either adapt to the inevitable or wither away in their ignorance.
 
What's not to get? You've quoted my post which answers this question you've inquired. The information is out there freely given, it's their collective willful choice that they choose to ignore/reject it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

We will still invest in renewable energy (whenever we have the chance/power to do so) and the jobs needed to create these artificial power sources will still be created, again, it's up to them to either adapt to the inevitable or wither away in their ignorance.
I don't get the refusal to attempt to win the people over that might be won over to your agenda. When talking about communities that have it worse, we constantly say: we need to provide education and opportunities. But now suddenly that is not an option anymore and we need to remove these communities from the planet according to an earlier poster.

I mean, if that is the way you think a country can move forward, by all means, do it I guess. I don't think it is the best way however.

A fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy is an informed and participating electorate.
This has probably not ever happened in the history of the world if we actually start looking at the electorate though.
 
A fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy is an informed and participating electorate.

Except that has never happened, ever, in the history of the world. Sounds to me like you're just not a fan of democracy. All you need for democracy is sufferage. You're competing for the votes of everyone, that's the system. You do not have the luxury of only having the nice or good people vote for you. If you decide you're not going to bother, you're going to lose.
 
I don't get the refusal to attempt to win the people over that might be won over to your agenda. When talking about communities that have it worse, we constantly say: we need to provide education and opportunities. But now suddenly that is not an option anymore and we need to remove these communities from the planet according to an earlier poster.

I mean, if that is the way you think a country can move forward, by all means, do it I guess. I don't think it is the best way however.


This has probably not ever happened in the history of the world if we actually start looking at the electorate though.

The only people that need to be won over are the ones who didn't vote. But like the need for renewable energy to combat climate change there will also we need for investing in education. Like what you're suggesting is that all these progressive programs are being taken away from them, but they're not. It's all out there freely given, again, it's their willful choice they ignore/reject it. Why entertain compromise with those who cover their ears and look the other way?

Except that has never happened, ever, in the history of the world. Sounds to me like you're just not a fan of democracy.

The US is not a democracy.
 

Toxi

Banned
This has probably not ever happened in the history of the world if we actually start looking at the electorate though.
This is like saying we should ignore political corruption because there's no government that completely devoid of corruption.

There are a number of observable issues with the American electorate, both compared to previous years and compared to other nations. Sticking your fingers in your ears and just assuming everything will be fixed with the right political candidate is not a long-term solution.
 
The only people that need to be won over are the ones who didn't vote. But like the need for renewable energy to combat climate change there will also we need for investing in education. Like what you're suggesting is that all these progressive programs are being taken away from them, but they're not. It's all out there freely given, again, it's their willful choice they ignore/reject it. Why entertain compromise with those who cover their ears and look the other way?
Because people are acting like all Trump voters are beyond help and can get fucked. But I think we agree that the ones that can be won over, should be won over by such programs, or by offering them arguments to this time vote differently when the next election comes up.

This is like saying we should ignore political corruption because there's no government that completely devoid of corruption.

There are a number of observable issues with the American electorate, both compared to previous years and compared to other nations. Sticking your fingers in your ear and just assuming everything will be fixed with the right political candidate is not a long-term solution.
I am not saying that. I just pointed out in previous posts how we should try and invest in communities that now voted Trump that can be won back over and move forward.

Yes, there are issues. So there should be attempts to fix that. And through those attempt maybe we can win over people that have voted Trump in the previous election. If that is also your stance, then we actually agree.

To me, saying that we should ignore those is the same as sticking your fingers in your ear and hoping for the best next time.
 
Because people are acting like all Trump voters are beyond help and can get fucked. But I think we agree that the ones that can be won over, should be won over by such programs, or by offering them arguments to this time vote differently when the next election comes up.



We need to deal with non-voters and third party voters before we bother trying​ to flip the Nazis.
 
Because people are acting like all Trump voters are beyond help and can get fucked. But I think we agree that the ones that can be won over, should be won over by such programs, or by offering them arguments to this time vote differently when the next election comes up.

Somewhat, I believe your are advocating an active role in bringing Trump voters in which I don't agree with. People are free to try of course but I'd rather the national effort be focused on those who didn't vote; the 2016 election was lost due to apathy not due to majority.
 
There's some pretty strong exceptionalism right there.

Let's have it straight. You can go nuts at Trump, but let's not forget Obama and the Democrats are 90% as bad. Obama still sent out drones to murder innocent people ("collateral damage"), and promoted the sort of income inequality that subjugates the people the Democrats claim to champion to a greater extent than any others. Who won the most under his tenure? Rich white men. Don't forget that - the rhetoric might be different but the interests are the same. Is Trump worse? Sure. But don't pretend the Democrats represented a real alternative. After all, Obama is now more than happy to share the spoils of the people he boosted during his tenure, as Hillary did before him.
No offense, but you've consistently displayed a deep, deep misunderstanding of American politics in every thread on the subject.
 
My thoughts on trump voters who aren't "Nazi scum" are this:


giphy.gif
 
Sorry folks... reaching out to Trump voters and addressing the economic anxiety afflicting AT LEAST 50% of Americans is THE winning strategy (along with riling up the Democrat base on identity politics as usual):

Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html

”I really do believe that we should reject this idea that if we just focus on turnout and the Democratic base that that will be enough," he said. ”If that really is our approach, we're going to lose six or seven Senate seats in this election."

”But," Cecil added, ”I also believe that just talking about persuasion means we are not capitalizing on an enormous opportunity."

Priorities USA released a poll last week, conducted in part by Canter's firm, that found the Democratic base – including voters who usually sit out midterm elections – was unusually motivated to participate in the next election. Officials with the group have preached in recent months that Democrats can both reach out to white working-class voters and their base with a strong message rooted in economic populism.
 
Sorry folks... reaching out to Trump voters and addressing the economic anxiety afflicting AT LEAST 50% of Americans is THE winning strategy (along with riling up the Democrat base on identity politics as usual):

Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html

This person is sensible. More of them for the safety of the world, please.

For a forum that prides itself on being in touch with the modern world, scientifically and mathematically literate and dedicated to increasing fairness and equality for all, it's amazing that there are still people out there who believe that non-voters are the way to win an election. Truly baffling.
 
Will some think that way? Sure. Does that mean we need to stop doing anything to help communities that are losing jobs and have a worse future? I don't think so.

You are acting like all Trump voters are one block of people with exactly the same thoughts, actions and ideas. And that we should treat them as such. I don't agree with that.

The progressive agenda is one of investing in people, providing education, providing opportunities for all. No, that will not work out for all, and I'm sure it is a lost cause in some cases, maybe in a lot of cases. But does that mean we should just drop it all and say: fuck these people?

I don't think people want to stop helping these people. We just don't want to appeal to their racism/sexism to win elections. We can take them kicking and screaming into the future, like he have always had to do
 

Nepenthe

Member
Sorry folks... reaching out to Trump voters and addressing the economic anxiety afflicting AT LEAST 50% of Americans is THE winning strategy

Why is it that only white people tend to vote Republican in significant numbers when they're economically anxious, but minorities regardless of their economic situation tend to vote Democrat?

In other words, why are white people the outlier? I would really like an answer to this question because I've been asking it since November and haven't gotten an answer.
 
Trump voters now think the economy is doing great so I don't think it matters much what we do to "help communities that are losing jobs." (with unemployment at less than 5%).

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Trump_voter_poll_summary.pdf

(page 8).

My favorite part is the economy felt like it was in the shitter until Trump won and then magically the economy is great. Reality was nothing changed, but it was because Trump was the president elect that made these ignorant folk feel like the economy was so much better.
 
Why is it that only white people tend to vote Republican in significant numbers when they're economically anxious, but minorities regardless of their economic situation tend to vote Democrat?

In other words, why are white people the outlier? I would really like an answer to this question because I've been asking it since November and haven't gotten an answer.

Because identity politics mean minorities will vote D no matter what, the WWC is free to make an unbiased and rational choice based on the benefits and drawbacks of each platform [because one side isn't saying they're subhuman.]

Really, if Trump was not a liar about being pro-healthcare, we wouldn't be having this conversation, campaign interviewers should have pressed hard about his lack of a plan/convictions on that front, but no, everything had to be filtered through a lens of He's A Populist.
 
Why is it that only white people tend to vote Republican in significant numbers when they're economically anxious, but minorities regardless of their economic situation tend to vote Democrat?

They didn't vote Republican per say with Trump. They voted to burn the house down (and "bring back jobs", or "kill NAFTA") because the status quo wasn't working. Hillary was the status quo, so they opted to burn the house down. IMO, very little at all to do with "my guy won't help black welfare queens, therefore I will vote for him" like GAF wants you to believe.
 

Astral Dog

Member
I have multiple black friends (family too, but I'm white) and two gay friends, (married), that voted for trump.

Not sure why a lot of them did. I do know that my gay friends did it for business though. Apparently the tax cut promises (I don't even know what they are) were their reason.


I did ask them obviously.

All I can do is shrug, I don't get it.
Ewww. This is so dumb and mean.you should at least had called them for it,because this don't make sense,i may get younger gullible gays voting for Trump/Republicans but married ones is something else.
 

Nepenthe

Member
They didn't vote Republican per say with Trump. They voted to burn the house down (and "bring back jobs", or "kill NAFTA") because the status quo wasn't working. Hillary was the status quo, so they opted to burn the house down. IMO, very little at all to do with "my guy won't help black welfare queens, therefore I will vote for him" like GAF wants you to believe.

The status quo isn't working for anyone who wasn't already in Trump's social circle. So why didn't Trump just completely fucking sweep the election Reagan style by winning bigly with every demographic?
 

Dude Abides

Banned
So you are saying we should just let certain places rot away without any attempt to get those people into other jobs, provide education for them to help transfer to other sectors?

I thought those were the platforms Clinton ran on. Those were the arguments put forward why she would be better for those communities. But now we need to abandon all that? I seriously don't get that.

I am saying it would not appear to matter what "we" do with respect to those areas as far as changing their minds as to who to vote for.


My favorite part is the economy felt like it was in the shitter until Trump won and then magically the economy is great. Reality was nothing changed, but it was because Trump was the president elect that made these ignorant folk feel like the economy was so much better.

Yeah, but the Tankies will nonetheless insist it's all just a matter of promising them single payer and free college.
 
They didn't vote Republican per say with Trump. They voted to burn the house down (and "bring back jobs", or "kill NAFTA") because the status quo wasn't working. Hillary was the status quo, so they opted to burn the house down. IMO, very little at all to do with "my guy won't help black welfare queens, therefore I will vote for him" like GAF wants you to believe.

I assume you have the data to back this up, which will also throw out the data that contradicts this, correct?

You also didn't answer his question: Why was it only white people, particularly males with less education? also, where do you live that makes you think you can even anecdotally support your assertion? Why is the economy suddenly in great shape to his supporters now that he won, if they're clearly not getting anything he promised?
 

Gutek

Member
I swear if I hear "identity politics" as an attack on democrats one more time, I'm gonna lose my shit.

WHAT IS "DONALD J TRUMP CALLS FOR A COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF MUSLIMS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES" IF NOT THE WORST KIND OF IDENTITY POLITICS?
 

Nepenthe

Member
I swear if I hear "identity politics" as an attack on democrats one more time, I'm gonna lose my shit.

WHAT IS "DONALD J TRUMP CALLS FOR A COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF MUSLIMS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES" IF NOT THE WORST KIND OF IDENTITY POLITICS?

Freedom™.
 
I swear if I hear "identity politics" as an attack on democrats one more time, I'm gonna lose my shit.

WHAT IS "DONALD J TRUMP CALLS FOR A COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF MUSLIMS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES" IF NOT THE WORST KIND OF IDENTITY POLITICS?

Makes sense if for all your life you're told that your identity is the default.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom