Religion, politics, sex .. and other taboo subjects

But hearing Old Ronnie named with Trump in the same sentence still is unbearably offensive to my ears. For the sake of the memory of America's 40th President, HEY!!!

You likely weren't around when "Old Ronnie" was shot and half the country cheered, just like my college dorm. Reagan was the Antichrist when he was in office and unceasingly likened to Hitler. I didn't know a soul who thought well of him until I moved to the East Coast in 1999. You're referring to the Reagan of history books, not to man he was perceived to be by half of this country while in office.

At any rate, Reagan was not the point of my post.
 
You likely weren't around when "Old Ronnie" was shot and half the country cheered, just like my college dorm. Reagan was the Antichrist when he was in office and unceasingly likened to Hitler. I didn't know a soul who thought well of him until I moved to the East Coast in 1999. You're referring to the Reagan of history books, not to man he was perceived to be by half of this country while in office.
I was around, but admittedly too young (and preoccupied with other stuff) to be following details of foreign politics in that amount of detail.

Ready to believe you that bit then... though it does shock me to hear. I surely wasn't aware that he was hated more than the average president while in office.
 
Demagogue. That's the word I am hearing more and more in relation to Trump. I suspect Trump will always be seen as a demagogue. Which is never a pretty word.

But it fits with narcissism perfectly. And that's the other word comes to the minds of millions when they think of Trump.

Narcissistic demagogue. This is how folks will remember Trump. At best. They will never see him as an American hero. He may, however, be the last American in which America had 50 states. My prediction is that if Trump actually comes to occupy the White House some states will soon begin to announce their independence from the United States, perhaps beginning with California. The "contagion," as it may be called in the news media, is likely to spread to include Oregon and Washington... and so on. Three hundred million is too many people for one country, anyway. And Trump may well turn out to be the last "American" president.

Hyperbole? I don't think so. You just watch!
 
Look...if you live in a nice, civil blue bubble where you REALLY do not know any Trump supporters or understand the conservative position, then yeah ok fine, you ought to maybe find some and listen to them. Have fun.

But I've lived in enough places where I've had deep exposure. And I've listened to enough voices. I have in my life BEEN conservative (at least on economic grounds and states' rights--later realized I was more libertarian-ish) and I still am not solidly liberal. So I've heard a variety of them from one end of the spectrum to the other, from bigoted and hateful to reasonable, to full on tinfoil hat and beyond.

Have you ever met someone who refused to acknowledge that rape culture exists, and had a discussion with them? Maybe go find some political news sources that allow comments, and read 'em. You'll get a face full of the "other perspective." Personally in my social spheres, I did not know a SINGLE legit Hillary supporter for the longest time. Eventually I met a few. But I knew some Trump supporters, and mostly Bernie supporters. Bernie was the hot topic, the man of the hour, everybody talked about Bernie.

But at the end, most of the people I knew who could not conscience either Trump or Hillary voted for Gary Johnson, or rather for an increase in the possible/hopeful viability of a future Libertarian party.

I held my nose and voted Hillary just like I said I would, and it was definitely a vote against Trump. I didn't love her, but I don't think she was as awful by a long shot.

Thing is though I have told people...I really hope I'm wrong about Trump being "that bad." I mean, I am not holding my breath, but only time will tell right? If I'm wrong, and once he's actually having to DO the job, he moderates his position and life goes on, I will happily admit how wrong I was, and I'll do it with a sigh of relief. If we are very lucky indeed, he won't alienate and destroy our relations with every foreign country on the planet except for maybe Russia. If we're lucky, he won't have more militarized police brutalizing and killing people, he won't outlaw abortion and maybe even make birth control almost impossible to get. He won't let Pence create camps to convert gays and destroy equal marriage rights insofar as they have thus far been gained. Won't force Muslims to register and be monitored closely.

But it's not his actions that scare me most, it's a segment out of that group that supports him...not all of them but some of them.

There are not just ignorant rednecks, but frats full of drunk young men, and righteous church groups, and who knows what others just chomping at the bit to exercise the new rights Trump has given them, to bully and assault and intimidate women and minorities and gays and anyone different from them, with smug grins upon their faces. There be bullies on the schoolyard, and the Principal says "boys will be boys." And I've been a victim of them enough times that I won't pretend they don't exist or barely exist. If you don't think there could be that many of 'em, you go hang out in the South a while.

I told my ex, who voted for Trump, that I am shutting out those who just want to grin and poke and be hurtful, to laugh at the pain of those around them. There were lots on my facebook, the ones calling the protests a bunch of whining crybabies. (Think they aren't bullies?) The ones saying they wish they had traffic blocked to work by protests, they'd run them over, the ones sharing the meme that says you didn't see riots in the streets after Obama was elected because republican voters have jobs to get to. (My ex shared that one.)

I told him that instead I am focusing on what I can do for those who might need some support. That people were coming together to protect one another. He said, "don't you think it's entitled of you, to expect anyone but yourself to defend your safety?"

He loves to remind me that I am powerless and should bow to the natural law of "might makes right." He loves to gloat at how weak I am because I'm not a man, and how I am alone and can count on no support. Of course that was not true if only I'd stayed with him, I'd have his protection. Now, he says, I can burn with the rest of "them." (Being people he does not care about, who are all "enemy.") In his eyes, a woman's love and sex and ability to breed are the coin she trades for a strong man to protect her from other strong men. In his eyes, you're either the bully on the schoolyard or the weakling getting pounded, and deserving it until you can stand up and defend yourself.

I listened to that voice for 18 years. I'm very familiar with it. I am, however, more useful and functional when I'm strong and serene inside and not cowering in fear under the voices of abusers that undermine my confidence. Frankly if I believed my ex completely, I'm not sure my life would be worth continuing to live...fortunately, I do not. But if you are strong enough, and you want to make friends with a few Trump voters, I can put you in touch with some. By the way, my ex thinks Ronnie was the best president we've had in his lifetime. And republicans I know think this country was more prosperous and rich and happy during the Reagan years than ever.

I was a little kid. I don't remember.

I guess the bottom line is that I think I'll give my compassion resources to victims instead of bullies. I gave compassion to an abuser and it didn't get me anywhere good.
 
Look...if you live in a nice, civil blue bubble where you REALLY do not know any Trump supporters or understand the conservative position, then yeah ok fine, you ought to maybe find some and listen to them. Have fun.


For clarity's sake, I live in red Suffolk County, NY, which went 52% with Trump. My former husband is a life long conservative and attends every Republican National Convention. Ours was a very mixed marriage, as far as our politics goes, and we differ on just about every issue except gay marriage. (Our irreconcilable differences are around polyamory, not politics.) I had a Trump supporter friend in my home on Thursday and another over for coffee today. We talked about politics, among other things. So I don't live in a blue bubble, nor am I unfamiliar with the conservative perspective.
 
Last edited:
Hey, Spork. I think you're a left libertarain much more than you're a right libertarian.

Unfortunately, most folks have never even heard of left libertarians, and so want to lump everyone into one or another of the ostensibly only (exclusive) two-sided lumping system called "liberal" versus "conservative" -- which is, to my mind, far too narrow and simple a schema to try to fit everyone into.

Political views are much too complex to fit into a simple linear spectrum of left and right. One can be both liberal and conservative, too -- and most people are. And not all libertarians adhere to the version of "libertarianism" which the Libertrarian Party adheres to. Thank heaven! The Libertarian party subscribes to a Right libertarian philosophy -- though few of them know enough about politics or philosophy to understand this or agree with it.

Capital L Libertarians tend to favor the Randian version of the Golden Rule: "those with the gold should make the rules." Left libertarians like me are for true, real democracy. But real, true democracy requires that we all grow the heck up and think and behave like adults. So my politics may be a bit of a pipe dream. Still, I prefer it to all others!
 
PS -

Right libertarianism seems a weird notion, since the political right is basically defined by authoritarianism. But right libertrarians do exist. They just tend not to know how much contradiction is embedded in their views. They tend to conceive of "liberty" in such a way which does not acknowledge just how much oppression (suppression of liberty) manifests in "free markets" (so-called). They tend to think that it's fine for corporations and big business to be "free" to do what they will. They don't like regulations or controls on what they take to be "freedom". But if we look carefully and honestly we quickly realize that those with lots of money tend to get to decide how other folks must live. Very rich people get that way through various forms of oppression -- and pretending it isn't so is the capital L Libertarian way.

True liberty implies economic liberty, which implies the elimination of all forms of oppression.
 
Hillary Clinton now leads by a higher popular majority percentage than Kennedy did to win the 1960 election. :eek:






By Daniel Marans
Reporter, Huffington Post
Hillary Clinton’s Popular Vote Victory Keeps Growing

"Hillary Clinton not only won the popular vote in Tuesday’s election. It is now clear that she won it by a margin larger than two candidates who went on to win the presidency."

"David Leonhardt, a columnist for The New York Times, noted on Friday that with a 1.7-percentage-point popular vote lead over Donald Trump,Clinton will have a larger margin of victory than Richard Nixon had over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 or John F. Kennedy had over Nixon in 1960. (Her edge is also larger than Al Gore’s popular vote victory over George W. Bush in 2000, though he too was stymied by an electoral college loss.) In raw numbers, that amounts to an edge of roughly 1.8 million votes as of Saturday. Votes are still being counted, however, with the outstanding ballots overwhelmingly concentrated in Democratic bastions like California, Washington state and New York. The Times’ Nate Cohn estimated on Saturday that there were a total of 7 million votes left to be counted nationwide. As of Thursday, more than 4 million votes had yet to be counted in California alone. That means that Clinton’s lead will almost certainly grow in the coming days, as it has since election night."

"A larger popular vote lead will not change the electoral college math and thus the election’s fundamental outcome. But it comes as welcome news for progressives eager to cast aspersions on President-elect Trump’s political mandate ― and gives fodder to a nascent campaign to abolish the electoral college, which has defied the will of the voters twice in the past two decades."
 
Last edited:
I wonder what would happen if on the 19th someone actually went against the majority of their state and Hillary Clinton was elected instead. I'm afraid if there are protests now in the streats by people who are hurt, disppointed and worried, afterwards there would be protests by poeple who are deeply furious by having taken away something that already seemed certain. Now that might get really violent; not sure if enduring Trump presidency isn't better for America.
 
I've already addressed your other points, so I'll let those be. I'm not sure how you extrapolated this out of what I said, but I don't care to debate this further because the claim is simply unfounded.

Trump got 27 percent of the Latino vote, 14% of the gay vote , 42% of the women's vote and 8% of the black vote, so there's got to be more going on than hate-voting. Instead of devolving into name calling and demonizing, I'm choosing to understand better the positions of those who favor Trump and why these people in particular voted as they did.

None of those groups are major voting blocks, so a small percentage of their vote is not a game changer. There will always be a percentage of those groups that vote republican. On election night I was in a bar sitting next to a black guy who voted for Trump because Trump was the republican. The guy was a veteran and that is why he said he voted republican.

Edit: didn't mean to include white women, which are a major voting block.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what would happen if on the 19th someone actually went against the majority of their state and Hillary Clinton was elected instead. I'm afraid if there are protests now in the streats by people who are hurt, disppointed and worried, afterwards there would be protests by poeple who are deeply furious by having taken away something that already seemed certain. Now that might get really violent; not sure if enduring Trump presidency isn't better for America.

That would certainly be historic.
 
I had a chance to observe and interact with a lot of truck drivers during this election cycle. Truck drivers are typically uneducated rural white guys. What resonated with them was "wall", "get all the immigrants out", and "get all the Muslims out". That is what made Trump exciting to them. Period. And if you don't agree with them you are a liberal commie fag. Period. There is no talking with them.
 
I am curious what accounts for his getting 14% of the gay vote, 13% of the black male vote, 29% of the Latino vote and 43% of the women's vote.
Still on search for different stories and reasons?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Asra-Nomani-explains-voted-Donald-Trump.html

Edit: It's funny how the US president divide carries over the ocean. I did get that link in a discussion with a "Trump supporter" in my country. It turned out that he finds the liberal politics hypocritical, for example all talk about "defending the rights of women" but then Hillary covers herself at a diplomatic visit to a moslim country. He thinks it is validating the oppression of moslim women. I said I find it to be respectful to their law, but his point is valid too. I'm glad that I had that discussion, otherwise I'd just say he's posted another completelly stupid thing.
 
Last edited:
I've been extremely upset and depressed since Wed., hardly able to get out of bed each day.

Interesting and frustrating bit of news heard on Bloomberg Radio: Trump's campaign had hired some amazing tech wiz who developed a new software with new algorithms to analyze poll results and it was able to pinpoint where he needed to go to drum up more support. It was a relatively inexpensive investment in a small analyzing team, and he flew all over the place late in the campaign to work the crowds where this small team recommended he go. His campaign was citing the polls, while the Dem team was saying, "The polls? What polls?" Because they were seeing much different numbers. Clinton had a huge team, costing much more, using old established techniques which indicated she was a shoo-in in certain states, saying she was in the lead almost everywhere. Bill Clinton apparently recommended she put more attention on the white middle class, and her analysis team thought it unnecessary. So, there was huge mis-analyses of opinion polls and she didn't bother to campaign or visit states where she thought she had it, but in reality did not.

This makes me even more depressed. I am barely functioning in my life, and having a hard time even just cracking a smile. I don't know what to do. For the first time in my life, I want to go somewhere else, leave this country. When I've had enough energy to get out from under the covers, I've been reading up on becoming an expat. Either that, or I give up completely. I'm so disappointed, so devastated, to my core.

Meanwhile, let's send some good thoughts to New Zealand, still dealing with their own aftershocks of a 7.5 earthquake.
 
Last edited:
Millions Sign Onto Call for Electoral College to Award the Presidency to Popular Vote Winner Clinton

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/11/millions_sign_onto_call_for_electoral

People don't understand how the elctoral college works. The electors are not independent people chosen by the state. They are picked by the candidates. The odds of several dyed in the wool republicans going rogue are astronomical, especially since the republicans will now control both the House and Senate, as well as having the opportunity to control the SCOTUS for the next 25 years.
 
None of those groups are major voting blocks, so a small percentage of their vote is not a game changer. There will always be a percentage of those groups that vote republican.

Actually, the Latino vote was a huge game changing factor in this election. The Democrats assumed that Latinos would be a firewall for Clinton and in fact, we all learned that there is no such thing as a Latino "voting block." Turns out, Latinos have many and varied reasons for voting and not all of them fall in line with the Democratic Party platform. And this wasn't just the usual percentage that votes outside of the assumed "block." "A slightly larger share of black and Latino voters cast ballots for Trump than supported Mitt Romney in 2012, despite Trump's disparaging remarks on African-Americans, Mexicans and undocumented immigrants."

In this election aftermath, we would all do well to listen to each other, try to understand why people vote as they do, instead of tossing around demeaning caricatures of "voting blocks." That's bigotry and it comes from both conservatives and liberals. I would like to learn more about why this considerable (and apparently growing) percentage of minorities vote in support of the Republican Party. This election was not all about racism, sexism and hate.
 
Actually, the Latino vote was a huge game changing factor in this election. The Democrats assumed that Latinos would be a firewall for Clinton and in fact, we all learned that there is no such thing as a Latino "voting block." Turns out, Latinos have many and varied reasons for voting and not all of them fall in line with the Democratic Party platform. And this wasn't just the usual percentage that votes outside of the assumed "block." "A slightly larger share of black and Latino voters cast ballots for Trump than supported Mitt Romney in 2012, despite Trump's disparaging remarks on African-Americans, Mexicans and undocumented immigrants."

In this election aftermath, we would all do well to listen to each other, try to understand why people vote as they do, instead of tossing around demeaning caricatures of "voting blocks." That's bigotry and it comes from both conservatives and liberals. I would like to learn more about why this considerable (and apparently growing) percentage of minorities vote in support of the Republican Party. This election was not all about racism, sexism and hate.

All these stories are looking at percentages of groups that came out to vote. They are not looking at actual numbers. As far as latinos go, around 30% of them vote republican. The mistake was assuming latinos would be outraged by Trump's remarks. He only denigrated Mexicans. Cubans and Nicaraguans don't care about that. Both those groups trend republican because they buy into the "democrats are communists" rhetoric. A lot of latinos are Catholic so they are voting against abortion and gay marriage. Same with Haitians. Religion cuts across all groups. So does military service. Military people trend republican. My old roomate was a Mexican who came here legally. She hated all the illegals in the hood, so she probably didn't feel insulted by those remarks.

I'm not sure what you think we have to gain by listening to them. They vote republican. We certainly aren't going to change our stance on abortion, gay rights, or whatever thing on the republican platform attracts them. I am more interested in why the democrats didn't turn out to vote for their candidate. I'm also interested in why only 50% of the population votes.
 
I am more interested in why the democrats didn't turn out to vote for their candidate. I'm also interested in why only 50% of the population votes.

Here's one story illustrating a town in Maine that flopped from voting for Obama to voting for Trump, and why: http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/13/why-one-town-turned-to-trump/

Sounds like the Dems have lost touch with a large base of people who used to traditionally vote for them... not just in Maine, but in the Midwest.

It's like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs... when people are worried about their own jobs and survival, other people's civil liberties aren't as high on their list of things to worry about. I'm privileged enough to be able to worry about this stuff; other people are just trying to live day to day and believe (whether right or wrong) that maybe this will help.
 
Back
Top