I think the Republicans have too many out dated or exclusive platforms that make it close to impossible to attract voters or sustain the party. Not a lot of logic and the ideas aren't feasible. I really thought it was dead, especially in this election.

He never used the word original. He stated that it was a national sin and he was correct.

As far as the coal miners go he may be correct even if you account for them too.

This past election was illustrative of just what people talk about when they refer to white male privilege.

Trump was able to denigrate entire groups of minorities yet still be elected. You know which group that was never denigrated? You got it white men.

What do you think would have happened had he decided to bash the coal miners for being uneducated? Same for the unemployed still mill guy in Youngstown, Ohio? What if he would have promoted stereotypes for them as he did for Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims?

Do you think he would have been elected?

He also embodies it from an economic standpoint also. Most wealth is inherited. Would Trump be rich if he didnt inherit it? Blacks have been denied access historically when it comes to wealth. You have a few outliers which suggests that there is some opportunity but that it is relegated to field of entertainment.

Blacks do have access the financial sector at all. It is a virtual non starter for them.

When he says that people are tired of talking about race he is also correct. Peoole choose to ignore it in the hopes that they will never have to talk about it. When they aren't ignoring it they choose to discuss it on their own terms and in groups that are receptive to whatever viewpoint they might have, alas Trump. What does that do to promote race relations?

Whites have it wrong whenever they suggest that blacks want reparations for slavery. I have yet to meet a black person that seeks it. When blacks discuss equality they primarily mean equality of opportunity.

_________________

Stop being rational and frank.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

What is a national sin?

_________________

Slavery and Jim Crow

_________________

Yes, but seeing as how we don't have a time machine, how would you propose to address the issue beyond what has already been done?

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

So, what is national sin then?

How is it defined?

_________________

Equality of opportunity. Can't erase history and really not looking for a redress either. When we elect a President as overtly racist as Trump it is rather difficult to place the sin of slavery and Jim Crow in the rear view mirror. It is funny now to hear commentators talk about how he is doing now what he said he'd do. He preached xenophobia and racism yet people argued that a large portion of support didn't come from it. Ok.

It is one thing to dismiss the blacks who stand on street corners and sell drugs, rob, steal, and kill. It is quite another to dismiss those that have gone about doing things the "right way". Guys like Trump never provide a distinction. When he was quoted as saying "he hates the fact that blacks have to count his money" he wasn't talking about the guy likely to deal with national guardsmen. He was referencing the guy likely to be a CPA.

When you have people essentially say that they don't care that he is a racist and xenophobe, then the window to discuss racism must continously be opened. Blacks don't have the luxury of overlooking this stuff. In my younger days I tried to dismiss it but experiences have forced me to pay more attention than maybe I'd have originally preferred.

_________________

What you say about Trump may actually be true, the problem is similar things have been said about every Republican president/candidate for as long as I can remember. Just screaming Nazi/Racist at everyone you disagree with really isn't productive.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Then why does it keep happening?

_________________

Because people are fucking stupid?

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

What is "it" here? Because the way I see it, there are two options:

1. By "national sin" he meant "original sin"

2. He meant only "national sin"

I think that #1 is corroborated by "national sin" appearing in a sentence right next to prognosticating on how awful it is that white people don't want to talk about racism all the time. If #2 is actually true, then we need to define "national sin", because in the current context it is meaningless, unless of course it is a reference to "original sin".

My contextual reading of that part of Pop's bloviations tells me he wants white people to feel guilt or remorse at slavery all the time. That reading meshes nicely with current political discourse.

Half the country is angry that Hillary Clinton lost and they hate Trump. It's not really about policy. Otherwise they would have been storming the airports when Obama shut down Iraqi refugees/immigration. And they'll talk around the fact that they didn't protest that or even mention it and didn't say a fucking word when Obama was droning the shit out those seven countries with tearful squealing about how Trump is "different". It rings hollow. It's phony baloney. Trump is different because they didn't vote for him.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Calling everyone who hates Trump a Hillary supporter is just as lazy as calling everyone racist.

_________________

Except I didn't do that. I don't like Trump and I certainly wasn't a Hillary supporter, but partisan politics is clearly a driving force behind Trump hatred. Otherwise you have to explain the lack of protests when Obama stopped refugees and Schumer explained why it was necessary. And you have to explain why all the rape allegations against Clinton are dismissed with a wave of the hand and an order to "Move on!" while Trump giggling about pussy with Billy Bush is the impetus to march on Washington. Good luck doing that in a fair and reasonable fashion.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Then why even mention Hillary? If you had said Democrats or Liberals in general, I'd have mostly agreed with your statement.

The part I'd disagree with is your number of 50%. There are a lot more people that hate Trump out of principle than you're accounting for.

_________________

Those women wearing pink pussy hats definitely believe Hillary Clinton "deserved" to be president. They aren't dealing with the fact that she lost very well. You could say the same about some board members.

As far as the 50% number, if what you say is true, how could he have won the election? Living in a large city we just see more people who hate Trump.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Oh, come on. Those women are annoying as fuck, but they don't make up 50% of the population. There are still plenty of reasonable Democrats, independents, and even Republicans who dislike Trump for sensible reasons that aren't political.

As far as the board, there's probably only a handful of "staunch" democrats and WAY more people who resent Trump.

_________________

We misunderstood each other. I don't mean that 50% of the population is crazy over Trump's election, just that 50% (or more) isn't happy that Clinton lost.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

I don't think so. It's pretty even here.

I don't think your reasonable Democrats feel like they fit in with the party anymore. It's taking a direction people don't want to go. Super rich out of touch celebrities, the Julie Dicaros, Stop Patriarchy, Shout your abortion, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIlsMKu67q0 can't be the faces of your party and the loudest members.

There is a difference between being the "loudest members" and making up the entire party. I know plenty of reasonable, blue collar Democrats.

_________________

Those would be the extreme left flank of the Democratic party.

Just like the extreme right flank of the Republican party would be the Richard Spencers and the Steve Bannons.

They make up probably 40 percent of the electorate.

The remaining 60 percent are left/right of center and are the ones who become turned off by the courting of the extremes by both parties.

_________________

It was not long ago that people argued that Trump isn't even a Republican. Remember those halcyon days? Which one is it? I'd oppose Trump even if were a Democrat and it is pretty cheap trick to simply loop him with all other Republicans. Trump is being evaluated based on his own merits as he should be.

I don't insinuate that he is racist either. I know it because I've researched the dude enough to know. People that have no problem with his racism seem to be the only ones that are ever ticked off when he is called on it.

Again it doesn't make them racist either. Racism doesn't effect whites in the same way that it effects blacks so the level of emphasis will be different. The antennas of blacks will and frankly should be up whenever they feel that racism is perpetrated. It doesn't make them whiny or complaining to do so because frankly that is the world that we live in.

I don't go through life thinking that much about it but I do feel a need to call people on it when I see it. I see with Trump and honestly I see it because he wants me to. He never attempted to disguise it.

_________________

Many politicians covertly signal to certain groups of people their racist and bigoted thoughts and some dismiss them because they don't recognize the dog whistling. This time around Trump was overtly a racist, sexist, bigot and a xenophobe and MANY still dismissed it. That was shocking to me. I would have bet my life and everything I'll ever own that our country was so much better than that.

I know you focus on Hillary wither because you are being lazy or you are trolling but it iisn't about Hillary for MANY. It is the idea that someone like Trump could win. For MANY of us that's the problem. MANY of us thought this country had moved far beyond a guy like Trump and we are shocked and disappointed and hurt to find out that it hadn't.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

How can you talk about Trump winning without also considering why Hillary lost? You want to frame Trump's victory simply as "Trump's bigotry resonated with voters" instead of the more nuanced, "Hillary completely failed to resonate with people that would/might have been fine voting for her, and Trump happily picked up the pieces".

Right. This is what I'm saying. The Republicans have lost people along the way or there were a lot of people that never identified with them. The Democrats are losing the moral high ground. Their actions drove people away this election and reactions are continuing to do so. I think most people were hoping Trump would be representative of that 60%. Obviously not happening and it's a world of shit.



Sure but your loudest ones aren't being told to quiet down or be reasonable. They can't be the ones that are influencing the laws, much how I wouldn't want the far right in charge. Imagine a world where Julie Dicaro makes the rules.

There was a lot of nonsupport for both candidates and lots of votes casted against.

Because I simply didn't believe his opponent would matter. It was my belief that when the entire voting public got interested in the race there was no way someone like him could win. I thought MANY would rationally move beyond Hillary's MANY flaws and their dislike of her because HE was her opponent. It appeared that the papers and MANY of the establishment types had but the general public hadn't. That was shocking to me and probably MANY other people.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

We seem to have veered off topic, but to answer your last sentence, we already have someone as president who is mentally unstable. I don't need to imagine.

_________________