Support NeoGAF

[MagnaderAlpha]

Meanwhile Trump spoke almost directly to them. He's talking about bringing jobs back home. He's talking about stopping China from stealing all our labor.

Like Trump and his goods that are manufactured in China?

He's talking about getting rid of politicians that did these people absolutely no favors.

Like Republicans, who are out for wealthy corporations. Corporations that would rather exploit cheap labor in poor nations than step up and pay actual American workers a decent wage and remain in this country?

They were made because a part of America that they love, most of these people likely were born and raised in, was being left behind.

And you could thank a LOT of that to both Trump and the Party his represents. LOL, it is sad, but it's true when they say a lot of rural folk vote against their own interests. If only poor white folk could get together with poor minority folk and set their sights on the REAL problem.... the richies keepin' them down.

 

[capitalCORN]

I'm having a hard time wondering if this post is a joke. If it's not this is really disgusting, talking down to the LGBT community like this.

Twinks for Trump.

im not convinced Biden could have blunted what came either. 3rd term of obama, establishment, anti-trade, anti-globalization. that's the winning message of this election.


3rd terms of the same parties also happen very seldomly, its an automatic disadvantage.

Grits in Canada ran unopposed since like the 90's until Harper. This a direct result of the 'us vs. them' two party system you have. Eventually people chafe under the two only options you have.

 

[ExVicis]

Nope. Just had a person say that I'm being unreasonable about my anger, that I had no reason to feel anxious, because they are a transgender woman but served in the army and thus knew how to be strong and respectful of others.

That was fucking bullshit, and I also think it's indicative of an existing empathy problem between the LGBT and black community that deserves some discussion.

I'm not sure that was the reasonable way to respond to it, but maybe you know more than me. I'm on the Black side of this and I don't fall into the LGBT side so maybe I don't know enough.

In either case I'm not liking how this thread is going, good luck all and be safe.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Other white people need to put up (too) or shut up.

Expecting minorities and minorities ONLY to fix the racial divide is insulting and insane. If they don't care then fine, but then be quiet.

My position at this time is that I am not sure that there is a way for people of color to live safely in America as it is currently constituted.

There are simply too many white people willing to vote for white nationalism. Whether they do it because they wholeheartedly support it, or because the lives and safety of people of color are simply not as important to them as other issues, does not really matter from my perspective. The consequences are the same.

If I sounded like I had a good answer, sorry. I don't believe there is one.

Well, whether there are good answers or not, the fact remains that the rust state belts such as Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio--states previously won by Obama, I might add--were the ones that sustain, support, and ultimately decided his path towards victory the most.

In my opinion, Democrats need to do something about that, whether they like it or not.

 

[ryseing]

And you could thank a LOT of that to both Trump and the Party his represents. LOL, it is sad, but it's true when they say a lot of rural folk vote against their own interests. If only poor white folk could get together with poor minority folk and set their sights on the REAL problem.... the richies keepin' them down.

This is a known phenomenon that dates back to Jim Crow. Poor whites may be poor, but at least they can claim the superiority of their skin color.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Well, whether there are good answers or not, the fact remains that the rust state belts such as Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio--states previously won by Obama, I might add--were the ones that sustain, support, and ultimately decided his path towards victory the most.

In my opinion, Democrats need to do something about that, whether they like it or not.

They liked the black guy mildly more than the outsourcer.

They liked the asshole racist more than the supposed bitch.

Obama/Trump voters don't get to make Barack Obama their Black Friend that OK's all their racist bullshit because he's a "good one.".

 

[Nepenthe]

I'm not sure that was the reasonable way to respond to it, but maybe you know more than me. I'm on the Black side of this and I don't fall into the LGBT side so maybe I don't know enough.

In either case I'm not liking how this thread is going, good luck all and be safe.

I will admit that my being pissed off made me imply something shitty. I would never stop fighting for others' rights or anything of the sort. However, it's weird and sobering being berated by someone for being fearful about the political landscape who by all accounts should be more aware of the minority status of others due to their life experiences, a person who knows I voted for the party that fought to secure more progress on LGBT civil liberties in decades. And this terrible encounter happened simply because they can't empathize with black oppression. And again I've been having the inkling that there has been a racism problem in the LGBT community for a few years anyway, ironically enough.

 

[MagnaderAlpha]

This is a known phenomenon that dates back to Jim Crow. Poor whites may be poor, but at least they can claim the superiority of their skin color.

That's the thing though, take away the minorities and it is apparent that not all whites are created equal. They'll eat each other alive and divide each other into, well, "the others". Regardless, the 1% is still the 1%, and they still sit comfortably in their little seats high up over turmoil, sipping on brandy and contemplating which Alps they plan to take their family during Winter vacation.

 

[jdstorm]

james tiberious kirk would reprogram the game to make the no win scenario winnable. sadly we dont have that option, the only option is to stay villa-gent and tell the dems to get there shit together and create an all inclusive progressive platform that includes stuff for all parts of the electorate and try and retake the senate in 2018, to mend some of the damage a trump presidency possibly can produce.

Sure we do. People can start 3rd parties. How many seats do you think a moderately successful well liked celebrity would get in a local election?

Do you want to stop global warming? How many people have you talked to about recycling? Have you considered riding a pushbike to work?

Different people have different amounts of power and influence that they have access to. However it doesnt take much to spark change when everythings on a knife edge.

If you have good policy ideas. Email your local congressperson. Annoy them with your policy ideas.

The game can be changed and reprogrammed.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

That's the thing though, take away the minorities and it is apparent that not all whites are created equal. They'll eat each other alive and divide each other into, well, "the others". Regardless, the 1% is still the 1%, and they still sit comfortably in their little seats high up over turmoil, sipping on brandy and contemplating which Alps they plan to take their family during Winter vacation.

insert relevant Pynchon quote here

 

[pigeon]

Well, whether there are good answers or not, the fact remains that the rust state belts such as Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio--states previously won by Obama, I might add--were the ones that sustain, support, and ultimately decided his path towards victory the most.

In my opinion, Democrats need to do something about that, whether they like it or not.

It's not a question of liking it or not. I don't think you read my post.

The fact that people in Iowa (for example) voted for Obama, then voted for Trump, does not make the situation better. If anything, it makes it worse. If they were genuine white nationalists, maybe they could change their minds. But the reality is that they just don't care enough about the lives of people of color to value them. They voted for a black president, and then they voted for persecuting minorities, because they don't really see the difference as important.

Now you want me to think about how to convince them to vote my way again. I'm not sure this is a good use of anybody's time. How could I trust them to be allies with me? How could I trust them to protect my freedoms when they've already clearly demonstrated they have no interest in doing so? Even if they voted with me one year, I will always live in fear that this is the year they decided I don't matter any more.

I am not interested in winning one or two elections. White liberals are interested in that -- which is why they're already arguing the Democrats spent too much time talking about intersectionality. Ultimately, if they lose one to a white nationalist, it's not that big a deal for them, and if they have to write off the rights of people of color to do so, well, hell, we all have to make sacrifices, right?

I'm interested in living safely and peacefully in America and being able to raise my daughter safely and peacefully. That requires finding a way to make this a country that doesn't threaten at any moment to elect a white nationalist again.

If you have a suggestion for doing that, I would be happy to hear it. I haven't come up with one yet.

 

[SneakersSO]

They liked the black guy mildly more than the outsourcer.

They liked the asshole racist more than the supposed bitch.

Obama/Trump voters don't get to make Barack Obama their Black Friend that OK's all their racist bullshit because he's a "good one.".

They also liked 'the black guy' over a Vietnam War Hero. President Obama won twice in the rust belt, not once. And he did so by significantly better numbers than Hillary pulled off.

Its amazing how democrats refuse to look to the failings within the DNC, their candidate's campaign, and the candidate herself in order to explain this; it HAS to be sexism/racism. Even though their new candidate pulled in 7 million less voters than President Obama did in both of his campaigns, and Trump pulled in over 1 million less GOP voters and STILL won.

Wanna blame the EC? Fine, go ahead. Wanna continue ignoring the continued recession/depression rural America finds itself in? Fine. But guess what - don't expect to win many more elections going forward in those battleground states unless you start speaking to those rural, historically Democratic voters. The writing was already on the wall in 2012 when Obama won with smaller margins in the counties that flipped in this election. Had Mitt Romney not been labelled a jobs outsourcer, the entire 2012 election might've gone differently now that we know just how disgruntled the rural American voter actually is that they were willing to throw their vote behind a racist/sexist/xenophobe just because he was the only one willing to hear their plight.

 

[JesseEwiak]

They also liked 'the black guy' over a Vietnam War Hero. President Obama won twice in the rust belt, not once. And he did so by significantly better numbers than Hillary pulled off.

Its amazing how democrats refuse to look to the failings within the DNC, their candidate's campaign, and the candidate herself in order to explain this; it HAS to be sexism/racism. Even though their new candidate pulled in 7 million less voters than President Obama did in both of his campaigns, and Trump pulled in over 1 million less GOP voters and STILL won.

Wanna blame the EC? Fine, go ahead. Wanna continue ignoring the continued recession/depression rural America finds itself in? Fine. But guess what - don't expect to win many more elections going forward in those battleground states unless you start speaking to those rural, historically Democratic voters. The writing was already on the wall in 2012 when Obama won with smaller margins in the counties that flipped in this election. Had Mitt Romney not been labelled a jobs outsourcer, the entire 2012 election might've gone differently now that we know just how disgruntled the rural American voter actually is that they were willing to throw their vote behind a racist/sexist/xenophobe just because he was the only one willing to hear their plight.

No, the Vietnam War Hero was in the same party as the guy that destroyed the economy. I question whether Obama would've won in a 2012-like normal election.

So, should the next Democratic candidate just lie about what they can do for rural Midwestern states? Because that's what Trump did.

Hillary had a plan to help outsourced folks. It just didn't involve reversing basic rules of economics, so people in Michigan didn't want to hear about it.

 

[Beefy]

They also liked 'the black guy' over a Vietnam War Hero. President Obama won twice in the rust belt, not once. And he did so by significantly better numbers than Hillary pulled off.

Its amazing how democrats refuse to look to the failings within the DNC, their candidate's campaign, and the candidate herself in order to explain this; it HAS to be sexism/racism. Even though their new candidate pulled in 7 million less voters than President Obama did in both of his campaigns, and Trump pulled in over 1 million less GOP voters and STILL won.

Wanna blame the EC? Fine, go ahead. Wanna continue ignoring the continued recession/depression rural America finds itself in? Fine. But guess what - don't expect to win many more elections going forward in those battleground states unless you start speaking to those rural, historically Democratic voters. The writing was already on the wall in 2012 when Obama won with smaller margins in the counties that flipped in this election. Had Mitt Romney not been labelled a jobs outsourcer, the entire 2012 election might've gone differently now that we know just how disgruntled the rural American voter actually is that they were willing to throw their vote behind a racist/sexist/xenophobe just because he was the only one willing to hear their plight.

Do you really think Trump will change things? It's far more likely he pretended to hear their plight.

 

[SneakersSO]

Do you really think Trump will change things? It's far more likely he pretended to hear their plight.

No, no, no - do not mistake me for someone who buys his product for an instant. I'm not telling you what Trump is going to do, i'm telling you why the union level voter in rural America clung to the only person willing to give them a life preserver for an ear. Sure, he isn't going to pull them in either, but if there is ANYTHING we as a liberal forum can agree on is that sometimes of the plight of the afflicted/oppressed/downtrodden and giving them a venue or voice is all they want. We do this all the time when empathizing with the plight of the LGBT & minorities.

 

[Pinko Marx]

Do you really think Trump will change things? It's far more likely he pretended to hear their plight.

Yeah but to even pretend to hear you had to have listened in the first place. Hill didn't do that. Turns out to be President you gotta also be a Politician (read: lie).
Now if you don't like that then that's a completely separate subject about politics on a philosophical level.

 

[Cranster]

There will be zero tolerance from me. Just because Trump won the election doesn't mean he earned it nor does it excuse his and his supporters opinions behaviors and statements from being ripped apart.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

No but expecting racists to bend over backwards for us for no reason is delusional.

Given what apparently constitutes "bending over backwards," that's exactly why appealing to them is a waste of time. Our elections have worked since our country's founding without the need for one side to understand another, and this one is no different. Bush didn't win by having a dialogue with Clinton's voters, Obama didn't win by having a dialogue with Bush's voters, and not even Trump broke that pattern, because he sure as hell didn't have a dialogue with Obama's voters.

Trump didn't get more voters than people like McCain, and he only won because the Democrats showed up in even smaller numbers. The problems in rural areas should absolutely be addressed, but not for the sake of expecting them to be a reliable source of support - because they won't be and don't need to be for our Democracy to function.

 

[JesseEwiak]

No, no, no - do not mistake me for someone who buys his product for an instant. I'm not telling you what Trump is going to do, i'm telling you why the union level voter in rural America clung to the only person willing to give them a life preserver for an ear. Sure, he isn't going to pull them in either, but if there is ANYTHING we as a liberal forum can agree on is that sometimes of the plight of the afflicted/oppressed/downtrodden and giving them a venue or voice is all they want. We do this all the time when empathizing with the plight of the LGBT & minorities.

If that rural union voter wants Taft Hartley repealed, infrastructure spending in his district, a guarantee his Social Security won't be sold off to Goldman Sachs, or any kind of health care reform that will work for him, he'll have to accept the nation getting browner, black people not getting shot by cops, gay people getting married, and women they don't know getting abortions.

 

[TemplaerDude]

I don't think anyone should sit around tolerating people who spread hate and anger, but responding to their hate with more hate doesn't solve a whole lot.

 

[SneakersSO]

No, the Vietnam War Hero was in the same party as the guy that destroyed the economy. I question whether Obama would've won in a 2012-like normal election.

So, should the next Democratic candidate just lie about what they can do for rural Midwestern states? Because that's what Trump did.

Hillary had a plan to help outsourced folks. It just didn't involve reversing basic rules of economics, so people in Michigan didn't want to hear about it.

What exactly was Hillary's plan to help rural American voters? Cause she is very much invested with corporate initiates who thrive on globalized trade deals; her husband signed NAFTA while he was in office which directly affected them in the first place, and she is still in support of that, and her stance on TPP ran counter to what the current POTUS wants to do, which is enact it.

And no, the next democratic candidate shouldn't lie to rural America if he wants to get elected. Sanders was onto something when it comes to that class. His message resonated with them, and he trounced Clinton in the states the she lost in the GE. What Sanders was offering was resonating with those voters.

 

[SneakersSO]

If that rural union voter wants Taft Hartley repealed, infrastructure spending in his district, a guarantee his Social Security won't be sold off to Goldman Sachs, or any kind of health care reform that will work for him, he'll have to accept the nation getting browner, black people not getting shot by cops, gay people getting married, and women they don't know getting abortions.

And yet, in many of those states (especially PA), they fully accepted those ideals to begin with. We're not talking about the deep south, which has been voting GOP for nearly a century. We're talking about the Rust Belt, which has leaned democratic for 30 years and adopted democratic ideals the entire way.

You're gonna tell Pennsylvania & Michigan that they aren't liberal enough? Go see where that gets ya.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I'm interested in living safely and peacefully in America and being able to raise my daughter safely and peacefully. That requires finding a way to make this a country that doesn't threaten at any moment to elect a white nationalist again.

If you have a suggestion for doing that, I would be happy to hear it. I haven't come up with one yet.

No other way except yanking a significant amount of your country's current identity, at the very least, and when you ask how, it is a question that is most probably can only be answered with only too-idealistic diatribes such as "improve your education" or "be good to other people", I am afraid.

My previous response would be more to the effect that if the Democrats really care about winning in order to further their platforms--and that include the well-beings of POCs and minorities, then they need to do something about the states that were directly responsible for Trump winning presidency.

 

[IrishNinja]

how good must you have it for racism not to be an absolute dealbreaker but just a "differing opinion"

...You voted for a person who will do these things. Why can I not criticise you for it?

I just need to accept that you decided to fuck me over as long as you feel a guy who refuses to manufacture his goods in the USA is going to bring jobs back to the USA, because something something MLK wouldn't be getting all uppity like this?

This mindset of "hey, don't you dare look at me like that! I only like what he said about taxes/elites, that doesn't make me a racist, xenophobe, liar, con artist too!" is both confusing and infuriating.

i just wanted to show love to OP & these posts - yeah, there was so much of that "echo chamber"/"meet bigotry in the middle" type of nonsense, im glad i bailed before any comparisons with the alt-right. great thread.

 

[patapuf]

If that rural union voter wants Taft Hartley repealed, infrastructure spending in his district, a guarantee his Social Security won't be sold off to Goldman Sachs, or any kind of health care reform that will work for him, he'll have to accept the nation getting browner, black people not getting shot by cops, gay people getting married, and women they don't know getting abortions.

I don't get how either of those things are mutually exclusive. Or even hard to combine, in a campaign.

 

[JesseEwiak]

And yet, in many of those states (especially PA), they fully accepted those ideals to begin with. We're not talking about the deep south, which has been voting GOP for nearly a century. We're talking about the Rust Belt, which has leaned democratic for 30 years and adopted democratic ideals the entire way.

You're gonna tell Pennsylvania & Michigan that they aren't liberal enough? Go see where that gets ya.

Actually, yes I am. Both states have had Republican legislature and Governors more often than not in the past 30 years.

Plus, as somebody who grew up in a white working class home in Pennsylvania, there's still plenty of racism in that state. Or maybe you should ask the fine folks in Flint how much the Michigan state government loves black people.

Racism doesn't die at the Mason Dixon line. Voting Democratic for President every 4 years don't make you Magic Liberal States.

I don't get how either of those things are mutually exclusive. Or even hard to combine, in a campaign.

Because a lot of white people love the welfare state, but love making sure they're above non-white people anymore. Throw in some old time religion, and you've got the GOP.

 

[benjipwns]

They also liked 'the black guy' over a Vietnam War Hero.

Why'd you put black guy in quotes but not "war hero"?

Obama is black right?

 

[capitalCORN]

Why'd you put black guy in quotes but not "war hero"?

Obama is black right?

Maybe if you're not flossing, you aren't 'black' enough.

 

[benjipwns]

Maybe if you're not flossing, you aren't 'black' enough.

I already exposed that conspiracy: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1257060

 

[patapuf]

Because a lot of white people love the welfare state, but love making sure they're above non-white people anymore. Throw in some old time religion, and you've got the GOP.

And would it be realistic that the Dems designed policy in such a way had they incorporated a bit of " we bring jobs back" in their campaign?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Well, whether there are good answers or not, the fact remains that the rust state belts such as Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio--states previously won by Obama, I might add--were the ones that sustain, support, and ultimately decided his path towards victory the most.

In my opinion, Democrats need to do something about that, whether they like it or not.

You didn't even address what I said.

 

[pigeon]

No other way except yanking a significant amount of your country's current identity, at the very least, and when you ask how, it is a question that is most probably can only be answered with only too-idealistic diatribes such as "improve your education" or "be good to other people", I am afraid.

My previous response would be more to the effect that if the Democrats really care about winning in order to further their platforms--and that include the well-beings of POCs and minorities, then they need to do something about the states that were directly responsible for Trump winning presidency.

Right.

Because, like I said, for a white male liberal this is just another election we lost. We'll get em next time! That's why they're so excited to talk about how we probably would've won if we'd fielded their guy instead.

But for a person of color, or a woman, this wasn't like other elections. This was an existential threat. Trump can lose next time, but the mainstream success and legitimization of white nationalism, the empowerment of a sex offender over a woman to the highest office in the land, those are forever. That's what we were telling people all year.

They just didn't listen.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

What exactly was Hillary's plan to help rural American voters? Cause she is very much invested with corporate initiates who thrive on globalized trade deals; her husband signed NAFTA while he was in office which directly affected them in the first place, and she is still in support of that, and her stance on TPP ran counter to what the current POTUS wants to do, which is enact it.

And no, the next democratic candidate shouldn't lie to rural America if he wants to get elected. Sanders was onto something when it comes to that class. His message resonated with them, and he trounced Clinton in the states the she lost in the GE. What Sanders was offering was resonating with those voters.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/26/vibrant-rural-america/

We don't need to reach out to racists. If white folks want to feel free. I'm well past done.

We don't need them anyways. Democrats have won the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 elections. If we can fix this electoral college issue, and I think we can, we are good. In my mind only Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, maybe Wisconsin, maybe Nevada, maybe Iowa stand in our way to 270.

 

[SneakersSO]

Why'd you put black guy in quotes but not "war hero"?

Obama is black right?

Haven't slept in nearly 24 hours. It was more how it sounded in my mind on what I thought the other guy was saying.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

It's not a question of liking it or not. I don't think you read my post.

The fact that people in Iowa (for example) voted for Obama, then voted for Trump, does not make the situation better. If anything, it makes it worse. If they were genuine white nationalists, maybe they could change their minds. But the reality is that they just don't care enough about the lives of people of color to value them. They voted for a black president, and then they voted for persecuting minorities, because they don't really see the difference as important.

Now you want me to think about how to convince them to vote my way again. I'm not sure this is a good use of anybody's time. How could I trust them to be allies with me? How could I trust them to protect my freedoms when they've already clearly demonstrated they have no interest in doing so? Even if they voted with me one year, I will always live in fear that this is the year they decided I don't matter any more.

I am not interested in winning one or two elections. White liberals are interested in that -- which is why they're already arguing the Democrats spent too much time talking about intersectionality. Ultimately, if they lose one to a white nationalist, it's not that big a deal for them, and if they have to write off the rights of people of color to do so, well, hell, we all have to make sacrifices, right?

I'm interested in living safely and peacefully in America and being able to raise my daughter safely and peacefully. That requires finding a way to make this a country that doesn't threaten at any moment to elect a white nationalist again.

If you have a suggestion for doing that, I would be happy to hear it. I haven't come up with one yet.

Nailed it.

 

[Laughing Banana]

You didn't even address what I said.

Because I asked for A and you answered B.

Right.

Because, like I said, for a white male liberal this is just another election we lost. We'll get em next time! That's why they're so excited to talk about how we probably would've won if we'd fielded their guy instead.

Hmm, I can see what you mean.

But for a person of color, or a woman, this wasn't like other elections. This was an existential threat. Trump can lose next time, but the mainstream success and legitimization of white nationalism, the empowerment of a sex offender over a woman to the highest office in the land, those are forever. That's what we were telling people all year.

They just didn't listen.

Yes, I suppose you are correct. Regardless of whether Democrats can ever make a comeback on the next election or not, this election has truly make it evident the ugly scars under America's idealistic image of "the land for everyone."

 

[Messofanego]

Thank you Crossing Eden for that OP and this thread. Some decent Republican candidate winning, I'll reason with their voters. Not with Trump's voters. This is where I draw the line on being polite, when we now have to fight for simple human rights. It's not just differing political opinions.

 

[benjipwns]

We don't need them anyways.

You will for the Constitutional Amendment.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

You will for the Constitutional Amendment.

No i dont. constitutional amendments can be proposed either by two-thirds of both houses in national legislature OR at a "convention of states" called for by two-thirds of all state governments. Then it must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or "state ratifying conventions" in three-fourths of states. But if you read the 3rd link in my previous post even option 2 isn't neccesary.

in case you're too lazy

we don't need a constitutional amendment to stop using the Electoral College. We only need the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force.

 

[DangerMouse]

And meanwhile they won't give a shit as they continue to vote against the left because of people like you and their my way or the highway attitude.

Is that why the entire Trump rhetoric was basically my way or the highway dictator stuff that brought them out in spades? If anyone is that one-dimensional it's "them" and they haven't even moved an inch yet in ages, but everyone else is apparently supposed to cave.

And would it be realistic that the Dems designed policy in such a way had they incorporated a bit of " we bring jobs back" in their campaign?

Too realistic for that. They know a lot of those types of jobs are not coming back.

 

[pigeon]

No i dont. constitutional amendments can be proposed either by two-thirds of both houses in national legislature OR at a "convention of states" called for by two-thirds of all state governments. Then it must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or "state ratifying conventions" in three-fourths of states. But if you read the 3rd link in my previous post even option 2 isn't neccesary.

in case you're too lazy

Yeah, let's hold a constitutional convention in a country that just elected Donald Trump.

This seems like a super good idea where nothing could go insanely wrong.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Yeah, let's hold a constitutional convention in a country that just elected Donald Trump.

This seems like a super good idea where nothing could go insanely wrong.

For posterity let me repeat what is contained in my 3rd link since no one wants to read:

we don't need a constitutional amendment to stop using the Electoral College. We only need the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Because I asked for A and you answered B.



Hmm, I can see what you mean.



Yes, I suppose you are correct. Regardless of whether Democrats can ever make a comeback on the next election or not, this election has truly make it evident the ugly scars under America's idealistic image of "the land for everyone."

You said " so in your opinion, ignoring them is the way to go forward?"

I hate that construction because nearly 100% of the time it's used to say something that you know the other person didn't even infer, much less say. Minorities can't afford to ignore these people, if only for our own safety. I thought that was obvious enough not to need spelling out.

What most of us have issue with is white liberals and other minorities (for whatever reason) asserting that we have to be the ONLY ones responsible for reaching out to these people. If these people don't want to share any of the burden then fine, but they also don't get to wag their fingers at others. I think that's a fair tradeoff.

 

[Peterpan]

I rather be called a sexist, racist or homophobic, then having to walk in the street not feeling safe or apart of the country. White people problems. Why can't Trump supporters understand the anger from the other side, they are not dealing with these issues of racism, they go on their merry way and all they have to put up with is people saying they a racist. If white people had the shoe on the other foot, whereby minorities voted for a person who stated 'I'm going to deport a lot of white people and stop white people from coming into the country, as well you know white people are pedofiles, but not all of them, some are good people'. Would you be so calm and say you have to understand, not all minorities who voted for that, hate white people? Really?

 

[davepoobond]

Yeah, let's hold a constitutional convention in a country that just elected Donald Trump.

This seems like a super good idea where nothing could go insanely wrong.

A few more governors and they can rewrite the whole damn thing.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Is that why the entire Trump rhetoric was basically my way or the highway dictator stuff that brought them out in spades? If anyone is that one-dimensional it's "them" and they haven't even moved an inch yet in ages, but everyone else is apparently supposed to cave.



Too realistic for that. They know a lot of those types of jobs are not coming back.

Jobs of tomorrow and high tech manufacturing, where as Republicans shout bootstraps.

But go ahead ask for tariffs. Corporations will be so pleased.

 

[EatinOlives]

At the end of the day you have the weigh the difference between being white and living with all the privileges that that affords with a side of minorities thinking you're spoiled, rather than living as a minority and getting shat on in actual measurable ways and yes, often getting killed as a result.

Let's not pretend that the two are equal. If someone does, they're part of the problem.

No, contrary to popular belief, Hillary didn't need THEIR vote to win. All she needed was more votes, a bigger turnout. Which she would have if her campaign (and pretty much every pollster in the country) hadn't been given and/or conducted garbage data collection methods that painted a completely different reality from what was actually happening. Had they known the real numbers they would've taken the states she lost seriously, and I'm very confident in thinking she wouldn't have lost them. This wasn't an unwinnable race. They just became complacent thanks to bad data. It has nothing to do with appealing to or coddling racists/sexists/xenophobes.

 

[DangerMouse]

Jobs of tomorrow and high tech manufacturing, where as Republicans shout bootstraps.

That's true, they should do that more and also especially specify what kind of jobs they'll bring back since so far unfortunately it seems like whenever it's election cycle nobody considers those jobs of tomorrow actual jobs (even though they should) since they only seem to care about whether or not a candidate will bring back "old" jobs, even people that bring them up get little recognition, which was sadly the other point. So they sadly just get lumped in with "jobs" like Republicans probably want.

I agree on that though.

 

[patapuf]

Is that why the entire Trump rhetoric was basically my way or the highway dictator stuff that brought them out in spades? If anyone is that one-dimensional it's "them" and they haven't even moved an inch yet in ages, but everyone else is apparently supposed to cave.



Too realistic for that. They know a lot of those types of jobs are not coming back.

I worded that poorly. What i meant is that there was no need to compromise on social issues to not loose the states the dems did.

Advertising helping out the rust belt is perfectly compatible with helping out minorities. You don't even have to compromise on anything policy wise.

edit: i think i meant to quote a different post.

 

[mozfan12]

I've seen a lot of talking heads stating to keep calm, forget about the election, let's unite America, it's time we come together bullshite. No, no, no! I'm not about to let misogyny, xenophobia, racism, sexism remain and stay the status quo. Right now, more than any moment, is the time to stand up and be counted. Get out and peacefully protest, donate your time and money to orgs that benefit those who will probably most affected by the shitbag, be a stronger and more civil person in you everyday life, don't let the fuckers keep you down. As a POC I'm anxious about the future, but I'm not fading into the background.