White people

[Chizzang]

I liked this article - anything poking at the media entertains me

"White Americans make up nearly 70% of all eligible voters, and of that enormous group of people, 63% of white men and 53% of white women voted for Trump. "

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/i ... ite-people

[Ivytalk]

JSO in 3-2-1...

[kalm]

"Make America Great Again like it was for white people in the 50's" doesn't fit on a hat.

And I say it's still the Democratic establishments fault...

[Ivytalk]

Is this the group you're talking about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU

[CID1990]

I liked this article - anything poking at the media entertains me

"White Americans make up nearly 70% of all eligible voters, and of that enormous group of people, 63% of white men and 53% of white women voted for Trump. "

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/i ... ite-people

So it's article number 4625583 in the "it was the basket of deplorables.... (and they're ALL deplorable)"... just couched in a different way.

I like articles like this, too

[Chizzang]

I liked this article - anything poking at the media entertains me

"White Americans make up nearly 70% of all eligible voters, and of that enormous group of people, 63% of white men and 53% of white women voted for Trump. "

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/i ... ite-people

So it's article number 4625583 in the "it was the basket of deplorables.... (and they're ALL deplorable)"... just couched in a different way.

I like articles like this, too

I don't think you read it very closely did you...

[Gil Dobie]

Historically, the Democrats just can't make up their minds.

[93henfan]

What a stupid article. It harps on a 21% delta in white R voters over white D voters while conveniently avoiding the 80% delta in black D voters over black R voters and the 36% delta in hispanic D voters over hispanic R voters.

Then it goes on to quote a supporters of reparations. Another gem: "the good whites, the educated whites, the liberal whites."

Agenda, anyone? Derp.

[CAA Flagship]

What a stupid article. It harps on a 21% delta in white R voters over white D voters while conveniently avoiding the 80% delta in black D voters over black R voters and the 36% delta in hispanic D voters over hispanic R voters.

Then it goes on to quote a supporters of reparations.

Agenda, anyone? Derp.

Shame on you, whitey.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO in 3-2-1...

Well, it's true in one sense but you could get more specific. It was White Evangelical Christians. The majority of Whites who are not White Evangelical Christians voted for Clinton.

To me that's the big obvious thing that's receiving little attention. White Evangelical Christians voted more overwhelmingly for Trump than they did for G.W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. And without that happening Trump would've had absolutely no shot. And it was reasonable to think, before the fact, that it wouldn't happen because Trump is such an atrocity. You would not think any "moral" person would support him.

The question is: Why did they do that? Why did they line up so strongly behind someone who is an ‎anathema to everything they claim to be believe? And, no, it wasn't the economy. White Evangelical Christians didn't vote for Trump over Clinton by 80% to 16% because of the economy.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW:

[93henfan]

The question is: Why did they do that? Why did they line up so strongly behind someone who is an ‎anathema to everything they claim to be believe?

You did see who he was running against, no?

Oh, that's right. Your dumb ass voted for Hillary.

[CAA Flagship]

The question is: Why did they do that? Why did they line up so strongly behind someone who is an ‎anathema to everything they claim to be believe?

The economy.

[93henfan]

BTW:

Yeah, we had a putsch down at the local watering hole just last night. You should have seen what we did to the Joos.

[93henfan]

The question is: Why did they do that? Why did they line up so strongly behind someone who is an ‎anathema to everything they claim to be believe?

The economy.

Precisely.

[Pwns]

In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, Sanders added that Trump won “because his campaign rhetoric successfully tapped into a very real and justified anger, an anger that many traditional Democrats feel.” That anger, he implied, was an anger at the “wealthy and corporate interests” being valued over the needs of the people.

But to discuss socioeconomic class as a single defining issue—as Sanders does—is to gravely underestimate how intersecting forms of oppression work. Social class and income have an enormous impact on a person’s quality of life, but changing them won’t magically erase other forms of marginalization. In fact, in many instances, marginalization unrelated to class or income is what leads people to live in poverty. As Ta Nehisi Coates outlines in his brilliant essay “The Case for Reparations,” it is anti-Black legislation in America that has largely been responsible for the economic suppression of Black people. Taking on Wall Street may do a lot to alleviate some of the stressors in people’s lives, but that action alone won’t end social ills like racism.

Translation: All you Bubbas and Jim Bobs struggling to make ends meet need to check your privilege. When you're black mall security follows you for no reason, policemen (allegedly) pull you over just for being black, and policemen shoot young black men for no reason (we've given a lot of false alarms of this lately, but believe us!). You're poor because you're a hateful, ignorant hilljack that only cares about God and guns but those blacks are poor because someone once called them the N-word and someone once dressed up as a young urban black male for Halloween. Also stuff that happened 100-200 years ago you had nothing to do with. Before you judge walk a mile in the shoes of a black person with a stable income whose kids will get favoritism over yours in college admissions 'cuz diversity. I'm sure you wouldn't trade places with them. And if you have any problem with this and push back against it you're just a hateful bigot.

[YoUDeeMan]

What a stupid article. It harps on a 21% delta in white R voters over white D voters while conveniently avoiding the 80% delta in black D voters over black R voters and the 36% delta in hispanic D voters over hispanic R voters.

Then it goes on to quote a supporters of reparations. Another gem: "the good whites, the educated whites, the liberal whites."

Agenda, anyone? Derp.

[YoUDeeMan]

Before you judge walk a mile in the shoes of a black person with a stable income whose kids will get favoritism over yours in college admissions 'cuz diversity. I'm sure you wouldn't trade places with them. And if you have any problem with this and push back against it you're just a hateful bigot.

Chizzy can't have kids, so he doesn't give a rat's arse about the future. He'll die smarmy and alone.

God has decided to cut off that gene pool...and for good reason.

[Chizzang]

Chizzy can't have kids, so he doesn't give a rat's arse about the future. He'll die smarmy and alone.

God has decided to cut off that gene pool...and for good reason.

Yikes..!!! WTF ^
I was entertained by the article and I see that somehow offends you
or you're at least behaving like somebody who is offended
you randomly insult me to make yourself feel better I guess

The article is written by a Canadian Socialist for gods sake - how seriously should one take the whole thing

You seem on edge around here lately, is everything okay..?

[Adolf Hitler]

BTW:

I remember that day like it was yesterday! I had 3 schnitzengrubens and a few steins Aecht Schlenkerla Helles while contemplating taking over France again. Those were the days maybe I should put the band back together again? I miss Goerbbie, Menggy and who can ever forget Ribbenthrop he had an ass on him like a 14 year old boy!

[93henfan]

Hip hop hooraaaaay, hooooo.
Heeeeey. Hoooooo.

[CID1990]

So it's article number 4625583 in the "it was the basket of deplorables.... (and they're ALL deplorable)"... just couched in a different way.

I like articles like this, too

I don't think you read it very closely did you...

I sure did.

Even the part where she takes the unique and unheard of tack of saying Trump voters voted for things like "misogyny" and the almost unheard of "white supremacy". Must be the first time I've heard that this cycle.

[houndawg]

JSO in 3-2-1...

Well, it's true in one sense but you could get more specific. It was White Evangelical Christians. The majority of Whites who are not White Evangelical Christians voted for Clinton.

To me that's the big obvious thing that's receiving little attention. White Evangelical Christians voted more overwhelmingly for Trump than they did for G.W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. And without that happening Trump would've had absolutely no shot. And it was reasonable to think, before the fact, that it wouldn't happen because Trump is such an atrocity. You would not think any "moral" person would support him.

The question is: Why did they do that? Why did they line up so strongly behind someone who is an ‎anathema to everything they claim to be believe? And, no, it wasn't the economy. White Evangelical Christians didn't vote for Trump over Clinton by 80% to 16% because of the economy.

Is that what your wife told you?

[LeadBolt]

This Presidential election was the 16th of my lifetime and featured the 2 of the top 4 most deeply flawed candidates of that period. Many more folks voted against a candidate than for one. A single good candidate by either party would have won easily.

Hillary Clinton carried the popular vote nationally while only getting majorities in approx. 420 out of 3100 counties in the nation (13.5%). She rolled up huge margins in 88 of the largest 100 counties.

Trump won the electoral vote by carrying 86.5% of the counties nationwide by a lesser margin than Hillary did in the urban areas. His support came from a more diverse portion of the electorate than did hers.

This election pitted Urban voters and voters in College communities vs. the rest of the country. The story here is not how narrow a base that Trump had (angry, white, rural, poor & uneducated voters), but rather about how narrow Hillary's base of support was.

[houndawg]

In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, Sanders added that Trump won “because his campaign rhetoric successfully tapped into a very real and justified anger, an anger that many traditional Democrats feel.” That anger, he implied, was an anger at the “wealthy and corporate interests” being valued over the needs of the people.

But to discuss socioeconomic class as a single defining issue—as Sanders does—is to gravely underestimate how intersecting forms of oppression work. Social class and income have an enormous impact on a person’s quality of life, but changing them won’t magically erase other forms of marginalization. In fact, in many instances, marginalization unrelated to class or income is what leads people to live in poverty. As Ta Nehisi Coates outlines in his brilliant essay “The Case for Reparations,” it is anti-Black legislation in America that has largely been responsible for the economic suppression of Black people. Taking on Wall Street may do a lot to alleviate some of the stressors in people’s lives, but that action alone won’t end social ills like racism.

Translation: All you Bubbas and Jim Bobs struggling to make ends meet need to check your privilege. When you're black mall security follows you for no reason, policemen (allegedly) pull you over just for being black, and policemen shoot young black men for no reason (we've given a lot of false alarms of this lately, but believe us!). You're poor because you're a hateful, ignorant hilljack that only cares about God and guns but those blacks are poor because someone once called them the N-word and someone once dressed up as a young urban black male for Halloween. Also stuff that happened 100-200 years ago you had nothing to do with. Before you judge walk a mile in the shoes of a black person with a stable income whose kids will get favoritism over yours in college admissions 'cuz diversity. I'm sure you wouldn't trade places with them. And if you have any problem with this and push back against it you're just a hateful bigot.

Times have not been great for non-college educated whites out in flyover country and they've been getting a taste of what its been like for a lot of minority types for a long time. Bubba and Jim Bob don't like the fact that all the n****** get free Cadillacs from Obama every Christmas and the illegals get high-paying manufacturing jobs as soon as they cross the border.

"If you can convince the lowest white man that he is better than the highest colored man he won't notice that you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on and he'll empty his pockets for you." Lyndon Baines Johnson.