OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[League Circles]

Alright let me be more clear:



So I'll rephrase: rallying behind our new president means supporting him as he murders innocent people.

Yeah, I don't know why I made my comment, sorry. Yes, these are the types of things that scare me most about Trump. Killing innocent people abroad and inciting more anti-US hatred.

First of all who said he would murder innocent people? What are u guys talking about lol.Hilary with Benghazi didn't bother anyone ? No one is "scared" if she was elected?..Hilary isn't any better she and the democrats were about to start a conflict with Russia. Now that Trump is elected things might get better between us.Trump has said repeatedly that he would like to have good relations with Russia than an enemy and he's right we need them for the fight against isis.

Well he's advocating killing people because they are related to bad people. Obviously many of them may be innocent. Certainly the children.

I agree, though, HRC would do the same. But she wouldn't say the same things, and that distinction is important.

[League Circles]

He says "X", you think he's lying. He follows through with "X", what's your stance then?

Umm, same as it was all along. I oppose such a policy. I'm not trying to excuse the stated position or explain it away. I'm trying to analyze what it meant with my best guess.

Will you fight before or after you can't get back into the country?

Well I don't have time or energy to fight now. Salut to those that do. I hope they're not fighting against campaign bs.

I won't leave if it appears I won't be allowed back in, and I'd fight that policy to some extent.

If I leave and am unexpectedly not allowed re-entry, they better hope they build that wall real high, on all 4 sides, and that I never get back in. It's a human rights issue at that point. I strongly predict it won't get to that point.

[coldfish]

The difference is that these are ordinary citizens showing their disgust for the racist-xenophobe-misogynist platform Trump ran on --- they are protesting, NOT Hilary or Barack.

The percentage of people PO'd at Hillary and Obama for being graceful to Trump in defeat fits right into the stereotype that the left only believes in tolerance and the democratic process when it is convenient/goes the way they wanted.

#NotMyPresident has been trending all week now. If such a thing happened after an Obama victory the race card would be used by the same people protesting Trump's presidency.

Your post is exactly the reason why I think a lot of Trump's people will assume this is a mandate to be aggressive/crude or harass minorities/immigrants/girls. I am not saying anything about your personally but pretty sure when your post is used by nutcases/racists, it goes up another level.

These people are not protesting the election results but saying they are united against him/his policy makers taking extreme actions. It is important the Trump people realize they are in a divided country and not use this election as a chance to implement his rhetoric into extreme policies or excuse extreme behavior. If you do not see the difference in a protest between not accepting election results/not accepting Obama's election Vs protest against sexual/racial rhetoric, it is sad.

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-to-gop-i-won-017862

Quite frankly, this is why I love our constitution. Tyranny of the majority is a real and dangerous thing. I am glad that there is a fillibuster. Winning 48% of the vote and a slim majority in the electoral college does not give you a mandate to run the other half of the country into the ground. Its actually why I am not that worried about a "worst case" Trump scenario. Congress and the supreme court can stop him.

[Dr Spaceman]

What is funny is that Romney lost with that percentage. If you look at the numbers, Trump actually did better with minorities than Romney. Beyond that, the candidate quality between 2012 and 2016 for the democrats was also "seismic". Democrats don't want to hear this but apparently Hillary was driving away people even faster than Trump was.

Democrats have their heads in the sand on the racism thing. That's all they want to see. This election had a race based component, but that isn't what flipped it. As I have been saying, what flipped this election was a number of democratic strongholds that strongly went for Obama (meaning they aren't racist) switching to go for Trump. It was largely economic based.

Instead of having a discussion about the real why's and policy directions, we have this constant discussion about racism that had virtually nothing to do with the outcome of the election.

Yeah, and you know what? I'm okay with this being the case. In fact, I'm 100% in favor of this.

I draw the line with people. I've cut habitual drunk drivers out of my life completely. I've ended friendships over anti-gay or racist attitudes. These are people who brought plenty of positive things to my life, but there are some things I cannot and will not stand for, because I have principles.

What we found out on Tuesday was that people do not draw the line at being racist. And that makes me shiver', because I thought I knew things about this country that turned out to not be true.

The conversation should be about racism, because what we found out is that plenty of people are willing to overlook the most despicable and reprehensible thing a person can be if they personally reap benefit from it. And that has me reeling.

I can respect that. His comments are awful and his behavior towards women boorish. Personally, its really tough because I agree with a number of the issues he has brought up (like trade, global defense, etc.) and there are a grand total of ZERO other national candidates discussing them.

If you or people you know aren't feeling the pain that our current economic situation entails, its a pretty easy choice. Racism = bad, status quo = good, vote against Trump. If you are staring at decades more of income stagnation as your kids struggle even worse than you, then its not as easy of a choice.

I lurk on this board a lot, and I've always enjoyed reading your thoughts on these issues, because it honestly is a blind spot for much of America and it's the biggest reason this is all happening.

Ultimately, my issue is this: why does it seem that the discussion of this demographic is correlated with racist sentiments? If Trump is the first candidate to truly take these people seriously (which I also believe), why is he simultaneously the one to replace the dog whistle with a microphone?

If Trump's strategy was truly to woo this demographic, why did he go to such lengths to race-bait?

Because honestly, you make a good point about this cohort voting for Obama. I'd really like to not write these people all off as deplorables.

But along with the good things he's said about helping their industry recover and killing trade deals, he's said some crazy anti-science and bigoted stuff. That can't be a mistake.

[coldfish]

The policy direction that Trump is promising is inherently anti-immigrant and anti-minority.

Systemic racism is also racism.

OK, let's discuss his general policy discussions.

Immigration: He is clearly against illegal immigrants. He hasn't outlined much of a policy at all for legal immigrants. Illegal immigration creates a supply of cheap labor which suppresses wages for low skilled workers. Given that in many cases these are also minorities, this is not inherently racist. All of that being said, immigration on its whole is beneficial to the greater economy. Personally, I have a huge issue with ILLEGAL immigration on two fronts:
- It creates a second class group of people without the full rights and benefits of being a citizen who can be exploited.
- When presidents pick and choose which laws they enforce, then they become dictators. Its a really slippery slope.

Trade reform: The intent is to get more jobs for poor and middle class people who again are minorities. Not racist. Beneficial to the greater economy? Interesting debate.

Banning muslims: An immigrant from Afghanistan is far more likely to carry out a domestic terror attack than one from, say, Denmark. With that said, this policy is inherently racist as it is using statistics to paint an entire ethnic group. Beyond that, immigrants from Afghanistan are still pretty unlikely to carry out an attack.

Infrastructure spending: Not racist. Technically disproportionately benefits poor and middle class. Again, actually helps minorities more than white people statistically. Is it worth the additional debt though?

Repeal and replace obamacare: This hurts the working poor getting heavily subsidized health care from the government. Helps small business owners. A lot depends on what the "replace" is. Given the statistical distribution of minorities, this likely is not pro-minority.

Global isolationism: Not racist. Again, would technically free up money used for defense for domestic programs which disproportionately benefit minorities. Would this really be a good idea though?

I'm sure I am missing something. With that said, Trump's policies overall seem to benefit poor african americans more than anyone. . . . if they work. A lot of these things are aimed at helping poor and middle class people get jobs. With that said, if implemented poorly this could send the whole world economy in the toilet.

I just wish we could have a little deeper conversation about this than shutting down every discussion by shouting "racism".

As a side note, the biggest issue here is that Trump is blatantly anti-non American. He isn't trying to hide that. He is putting america and americans first and if he is successful, non americans will not benefit. A lot of the global angst is based around that. Not ever really discussed but important is just how much areas like Western Europe, Australia, Canada, etc. benefit from the global economic system that the US subsidizes. Trump is threatening to take those subsidies away.

The margin in this election was very thin. We could come up with quite a few things that tipped the election.

Clinton's failure to mobilize the minority vote being one of those. P.S. the Tim Kaine selection should go down as a Palin-tier VP choice.

But another factor in the result was Trump's frustrating ability to maintain the middle-right vote, despite actions and rhetoric that I assumed would have been disqualifying in the eyes of moderates. That was clearly not the case for white moderates. They voted for the guy in force. I think that warrants discussion on race.

But you are right that the other factors at play shouldn't be ignored either.

Very true. I can't overstate that I know that racism was a factor in this election. It always is unfortunately but it was a bigger issue in this one. I just think that we are doing our society a disservice by ONLY discussing that aspect of it. Personally, I see the same dynamics that *partially* supported Trump also drove Sanders' support. It even impacted #Brexit. There is something big going on in the world.

Personally, I think the world benefits from the current global economic system. I am glad we trade smart phones with China instead of artillery shells. With that said, some people are hurt by it. Unless we find a way to balance things out a little better, those people are going to tear the whole thing down to everyone's detriment.

[Susan]

Umm, same as it was all along. I oppose such a policy. I'm not trying to excuse the stated position or explain it away. I'm trying to analyze what it meant with my best guess.

Will you fight before or after you can't get back into the country?

Well I don't have time or energy to fight now. Salut to those that do. I hope they're not fighting against campaign bs.

I won't leave if it appears I won't be allowed back in, and I'd fight that policy to some extent.

If I leave and am unexpectedly not allowed re-entry, they better hope they build that wall real high, on all 4 sides, and that I never get back in. It's a human rights issue at that point. I strongly predict it won't get to that point.

Which right of yours will you fight for? When will you have the time and energy to fight for your own rights?

[SpinninHouse]

Can anyone find how many write in votes Bernie got? I'm trying to find it but can't seem to get anything.

[Red8911]

If standing up for the scientific community, women's, minorities and immigrants rights is going to divide this country, I'm not sure what to say.

These are things he ran on. These are things that he said. This is not a conspiracy theory like the birther movement was. These are cold, hard and very difficult facts about him and what he's done.

If standing up for people's RIGHTS is too PC for you, I'm sorry.

So what horrible thing do you think trump will do with all the women now that he's president ?? Is he going to go around harassing them ? Lol cmon people wake up.. On ILLEGAL immigrants,yes he does want to have a stricter law as do all republicans not just him but news flash our current president Obama has also deported thousands. They aren't bad people for that it's the law.Trump has said repeatedly that he supports immigrants who go through the system and come in legally.

Q: Do you believe that women who get abortions should be punished?

Trump: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

Q: for the woman?

Trump:Yeah. There has to be some form.

Look he and the Republican Party have always been pro life, they think abortions are wrong. That's not trumps idea, the party has been like that. Now when he said he will punish them yeah it was wrong but I'm sure he meant more of a fine not torture or jail.. He has not brought up this"punishment" idea for a while now or at the debate, it's not going to happen.. He has said he disagrees with women having abortions after a certain time,this has been an issue for years now and many ppl are with and against that including women.. Let's not forget guys , in the USA we don't have dictatorship,Trump cannot punish anyone for no reason and do whatever he wants.Americans need to get this through their heads they aren't thinking clearly through their hate towards trump.

[League Circles]

Will you fight before or after you can't get back into the country?

Well I don't have time or energy to fight now. Salut to those that do. I hope they're not fighting against campaign bs.

I won't leave if it appears I won't be allowed back in, and I'd fight that policy to some extent.

If I leave and am unexpectedly not allowed re-entry, they better hope they build that wall real high, on all 4 sides, and that I never get back in. It's a human rights issue at that point. I strongly predict it won't get to that point.

Which right of yours will you fight for? When will you have the time and energy to fight for your own rights?

I would be fighting for the right to see family (internationally) which I consider a human right (as distinct from a legal right, necessarily). I'll have time and energy when I think those human rights are in actual danger of being compromised.

Also, I don't consider traditional "protesting" to be a particularly effective means of "fighting" in the modern age. I see that more as a dated tactic. I don't want to say out loud what I would consider more effective.

[coldfish]

Yeah, and you know what? I'm okay with this being the case. In fact, I'm 100% in favor of this.

I draw the line with people. I've cut habitual drunk drivers out of my life completely. I've ended friendships over anti-gay or racist attitudes. These are people who brought plenty of positive things to my life, but there are some things I cannot and will not stand for, because I have principles.

What we found out on Tuesday was that people do not draw the line at being racist. And that makes me shiver', because I thought I knew things about this country that turned out to not be true.

The conversation should be about racism, because what we found out is that plenty of people are willing to overlook the most despicable and reprehensible thing a person can be if they personally reap benefit from it. And that has me reeling.

I can respect that. His comments are awful and his behavior towards women boorish. Personally, its really tough because I agree with a number of the issues he has brought up (like trade, global defense, etc.) and there are a grand total of ZERO other national candidates discussing them.

If you or people you know aren't feeling the pain that our current economic situation entails, its a pretty easy choice. Racism = bad, status quo = good, vote against Trump. If you are staring at decades more of income stagnation as your kids struggle even worse than you, then its not as easy of a choice.

I lurk on this board a lot, and I've always enjoyed reading your thoughts on these issues, because it honestly is a blind spot for much of America and it's the biggest reason this is all happening.

Ultimately, my issue is this: why does it seem that the discussion of this demographic is correlated with racist sentiments? If Trump is the first candidate to truly take these people seriously (which I also believe), why is he simultaneously the one to replace the dog whistle with a microphone?

If Trump's strategy was truly to woo this demographic, why did he go to such lengths to race-bait?

Because honestly, you make a good point about this cohort voting for Obama. I'd really like to not write these people all off as deplorables.

But along with the good things he's said about helping their industry recover and killing trade deals, he's said some crazy anti-science and bigoted stuff. That can't be a mistake.

OK, the term "dog whistle" has gotten popular. I'll go with that.

In the 70's, Detroit was at its peak. GM made half the cars in the world. Car workers could expect lifetime employment with great and increasing wages. The oil shocks hit, the Japanese move in with more fuel efficient cars and a few decades later Detroit is bankrupt, GM and Chrysler are bankrupt, pensions are slashed, people have to leave, etc.

A lot of the environmental talk Hillary does is a dog whistle for blue collar workers saying "I am going to absolutely crush you." Hell, she outright said it to coal workers and they don't believe she is going to "replace" their jobs with something else because it hasn't happened before.

When politicians deny climate change, for example, you are telling 10's of millions of workers that you aren't going to crush the life out of them and their children. You are telling them what they want to hear. Yes, its intentional. Same as when Bernie Sanders promises all kinds of free stuff the country can't possibly pay for and no one calls him out on it. He was telling a group of people what they want to hear so they ignored the questionable nature of it.

The same thing goes for immigration. People who have highly skilled jobs making lots of money don't mind, or even really notice, the hispanic girl cleaning their hotel room. If you are making near minimum wage bouncing from job to job, that immigrant is taking money out of your pocket (in the short term). Talking about immigration is a "dog whistle" for people in unskilled trades directly competing with undocumented workers. That group includes construction, truckers, etc. nowadays.

A lot of these people are racist. I don't doubt it. The question is "why" they are racist. Its easy to be a good hearted accepting of all people type person when you are at the top of the food chain. When you are literally wondering where your next food is going to come from, finding someone to blame for it is much easier.

My $0.02

[Red8911]

Yeah, I don't know why I made my comment, sorry. Yes, these are the types of things that scare me most about Trump. Killing innocent people abroad and inciting more anti-US hatred.

First of all who said he would murder innocent people? What are u guys talking about lol.Hilary with Benghazi didn't bother anyone ? No one is "scared" if she was elected?..Hilary isn't any better she and the democrats were about to start a conflict with Russia. Now that Trump is elected things might get better between us.Trump has said repeatedly that he would like to have good relations with Russia than an enemy and he's right we need them for the fight against isis.

Well he's advocating killing people because they are related to bad people. Obviously many of them may be innocent. Certainly the children.

I agree, though, HRC would do the same. But she wouldn't say the same things, and that distinction is important.

Look terrorists are obviously very bad people who have killed many of Americans. Now trump is trying to think out of the box of a way to affect them,since they don't care if they die. Will they rethink their position,give more information, and/or surrender if their loved ones are brought in? It's possible it can work for some. America needs to get more dirty if they want to defeat Isis, they are unfortunately dealing with evil people who shouldn't even be considered human beings with the things they do.Its tough to make these calls. Also I don't recall trump ever saying he'd kill the families, maybe interrogate but not kill.

[Jo Jo English]

Turned on Fox News for a bit this morning (yeah, yeah, I know... I did this to myself) and they were covering Trump's White House visit. I am paraphrasing, but the anchor said something similar to:

The office of the President deserves respect, regardless of whether the election went the way you wanted it to. It is time to put aside petty partisan bickering and come together as a nation and support our President elect for the good of our country.

In a lot of ways I agree with that statement. What I found absolutely disgusting is that it was being preached by the network who for 8 years has lambasted our current President for every move he has made, regardless if it was warranted or not.

The network that aired this...

Watch on YouTube

... now expects me to play nice?

I don't think so.

[League Circles]

First of all who said he would murder innocent people? What are u guys talking about lol.Hilary with Benghazi didn't bother anyone ? No one is "scared" if she was elected?..Hilary isn't any better she and the democrats were about to start a conflict with Russia. Now that Trump is elected things might get better between us.Trump has said repeatedly that he would like to have good relations with Russia than an enemy and he's right we need them for the fight against isis.

Well he's advocating killing people because they are related to bad people. Obviously many of them may be innocent. Certainly the children.

I agree, though, HRC would do the same. But she wouldn't say the same things, and that distinction is important.

Look terrorists are obviously very bad people who have killed many of Americans. Now trump is trying to think out of the box of a way to affect them,since they don't care if they die. Will they rethink their position,give more information, and/or surrender if their loved ones are brought in? It's possible it can work for some. America needs to get more dirty if they want to defeat Isis, they are unfortunately dealing with evil people who shouldn't even be considered human beings with the things they do.Its tough to make these calls. Also I don't recall trump ever saying he'd kill the families, maybe interrogate but not kill.

Seems pretty clear to me he's up to murdering their families:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

I agree that would work to an extent. It also works for the mafia and for terrorists themselves. I mean, that's what terrorism is. Maybe we should try killing them with kindness instead of lowering our values and killing innocent people, even if it may appear to work in the short term.

[DanTown8587]

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-to-gop-i-won-017862

Quite frankly, this is why I love our constitution. Tyranny of the majority is a real and dangerous thing. I am glad that there is a fillibuster. Winning 48% of the vote and a slim majority in the electoral college does not give you a mandate to run the other half of the country into the ground. Its actually why I am not that worried about a "worst case" Trump scenario. Congress and the supreme court can stop him.

First off, it goes without saying that Trump won and will be president. I do not question the authority that he has been granted by our democratic process.

Secondly, there has always been a fear of the right by the left because the right has made restriction of rights more of their platform than the left ever has. The only real right the left has ever fought to restrict is gun ownership but in most cases that's about regulation as opposed to outright restricting any sort of gun ownership.

Third,Trump ran on numerous policies about restricting or removing rights that people so dearly rely on. The Obama stimulus package is a disagreement about how to govern but it in no way restricted anyone's rights to something nor did it only apply to a partisan group of people. Trumps campaign is heavy on things like RESTRICTING the rights to an abortion or RESTRICTING rights of muslims or RESTRICTING the rights of gays to marry or get equal protection.

Fourth, people rely on government programs in all walks of life. ACA makes sure people like me have access to healthcare because providers cannot deny me coverage because I'm more prone to tumors. When that's repealed, I no longer have access to healthcare. Me and 20 million people who need it the most will go right back to not having access. Have you noticed that since ACA passed we haven't seen stories of bankruptcy and six figure expenditures on health care? ACA was far from perfect but it at least gave access to everyone.

In summation, I can understand why you don't have the fears of a Trump presidency that I do but that's because you probably don't stand to lose much from it. You may agree or disagree with his policies but you likely won't lose a right or government provided protection that you rely on. However, there are others in this country who will LOSE rights in a way that has never truly happened in our history. And I'm not even talking about serious issues like tax reform, climate change, etc but just near basic rights people won't have.

[TheSuzerain]

The percentage of people PO'd at Hillary and Obama for being graceful to Trump in defeat fits right into the stereotype that the left only believes in tolerance and the democratic process when it is convenient/goes the way they wanted.

#NotMyPresident has been trending all week now. If such a thing happened after an Obama victory the race card would be used by the same people protesting Trump's presidency.

Your post is exactly the reason why I think a lot of Trump's people will assume this is a mandate to be aggressive/crude or harass minorities/immigrants/girls. I am not saying anything about your personally but pretty sure when your post is used by nutcases/racists, it goes up another level.

These people are not protesting the election results but saying they are united against him/his policy makers taking extreme actions. It is important the Trump people realize they are in a divided country and not use this election as a chance to implement his rhetoric into extreme policies or excuse extreme behavior. If you do not see the difference in a protest between not accepting election results/not accepting Obama's election Vs protest against sexual/racial rhetoric, it is sad.

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-to-gop-i-won-017862

Quite frankly, this is why I love our constitution. Tyranny of the majority is a real and dangerous thing. I am glad that there is a fillibuster. Winning 48% of the vote and a slim majority in the electoral college does not give you a mandate to run the other half of the country into the ground. Its actually why I am not that worried about a "worst case" Trump scenario. Congress and the supreme court can stop him.

The idea that the party that nominated the guy will responsibly check his power is kind of like hoping Rondo shoots 40% from 3.

The GOP controls everything despite losing the popular vote in every category. We don't have tyranny of the majority, but that doesn't mean we don't have tyranny of another variety.

[League Circles]

Turned on Fox News for a bit this morning (yeah, yeah, I know... I did this to myself) and they were covering Trump's White House visit. I am paraphrasing, but the anchor said something similar to:

The office of the President deserves respect, regardless of whether the election went the way you wanted it to. It is time to put aside petty partisan bickering and come together as a nation and support our President elect for the good of our country.

In a lot of ways I agree with that statement. What I found absolutely disgusting is that it was being preached by the network who for 8 years has lambasted our current President for every move he has made, regardless if it was warranted or not.

The network that aired this...

Watch on YouTube

... now expects me to play nice?

I don't think so.

What a piece of **** that hannity is.

Criticizing the correct way to order a burger.... SMH Calling it "special". You **** hick. SMH

[Jo Jo English]

Look terrorists are obviously very bad people who have killed many of Americans. Now trump is trying to think out of the box of a way to affect them,since they don't care if they die. Will they rethink their position,give more information, and/or surrender if their loved ones are brought in? It's possible it can work for some. America needs to get more dirty if they want to defeat Isis, they are unfortunately dealing with evil people who shouldn't even be considered human beings with the things they do.Its tough to make these calls. Also I don't recall trump ever saying he'd kill the families, maybe interrogate but not kill.

When he said we need to "take out their families" I don't think he meant to dinner.

The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

[Dr Spaceman]

Spoiler:

I can respect that. His comments are awful and his behavior towards women boorish. Personally, its really tough because I agree with a number of the issues he has brought up (like trade, global defense, etc.) and there are a grand total of ZERO other national candidates discussing them.

If you or people you know aren't feeling the pain that our current economic situation entails, its a pretty easy choice. Racism = bad, status quo = good, vote against Trump. If you are staring at decades more of income stagnation as your kids struggle even worse than you, then its not as easy of a choice.

I lurk on this board a lot, and I've always enjoyed reading your thoughts on these issues, because it honestly is a blind spot for much of America and it's the biggest reason this is all happening.

Ultimately, my issue is this: why does it seem that the discussion of this demographic is correlated with racist sentiments? If Trump is the first candidate to truly take these people seriously (which I also believe), why is he simultaneously the one to replace the dog whistle with a microphone?

If Trump's strategy was truly to woo this demographic, why did he go to such lengths to race-bait?

Because honestly, you make a good point about this cohort voting for Obama. I'd really like to not write these people all off as deplorables.

But along with the good things he's said about helping their industry recover and killing trade deals, he's said some crazy anti-science and bigoted stuff. That can't be a mistake.

OK, the term "dog whistle" has gotten popular. I'll go with that.

In the 70's, Detroit was at its peak. GM made half the cars in the world. Car workers could expect lifetime employment with great and increasing wages. The oil shocks hit, the Japanese move in with more fuel efficient cars and a few decades later Detroit is bankrupt, GM and Chrysler are bankrupt, pensions are slashed, people have to leave, etc.

A lot of the environmental talk Hillary does is a dog whistle for blue collar workers saying "I am going to absolutely crush you." Hell, she outright said it to coal workers and they don't believe she is going to "replace" their jobs with something else because it hasn't happened before.

When politicians deny climate change, for example, you are telling 10's of millions of workers that you aren't going to crush the life out of them and their children. You are telling them what they want to hear. Yes, its intentional. Same as when Bernie Sanders promises all kinds of free stuff the country can't possibly pay for and no one calls him out on it. He was telling a group of people what they want to hear so they ignored the questionable nature of it.

The same thing goes for immigration. People who have highly skilled jobs making lots of money don't mind, or even really notice, the hispanic girl cleaning their hotel room. If you are making near minimum wage bouncing from job to job, that immigrant is taking money out of your pocket (in the short term). Talking about immigration is a "dog whistle" for people in unskilled trades directly competing with undocumented workers. That group includes construction, truckers, etc. nowadays.

A lot of these people are racist. I don't doubt it. The question is "why" they are racist. Its easy to be a good hearted accepting of all people type person when you are at the top of the food chain. When you are literally wondering where your next food is going to come from, finding someone to blame for it is much easier.

My $0.02

Thanks for the perspective. Definitely something I'll have to chew one.

[TimRobbins]

Trump actually has an interesting idea. Lowering repatriation tax rate in exchange for companies moving production back to the US.

I see absolutely no reason why iPhones can't be made in Detroit.

[Talclipse]

"All of war is a crime against humanity"

You must be kidding me right?? A just War is a necessity at times.unjust wars are the problem.and they are why most of the WORLD hates us.they aren't jealous of us,they are sick of our crap..

On immigration,ill say this.what would any of you do if i walked into your home right now,starting eating all of your food,started demanding that the tv be placed in a different area of the home that I liked,kicked your dog ect?? You'd call the cops and have me arrested for trespassing right??

How is that any different from what is happening at our borders?Trump wants the illegals gone that simple.they come into our house without being invited,steal our jobs,steal resources ment for Americans and liberals sit around and do jack to stop it.his way will force businesss to hire Americans and pay them a minimum wage.

On abortion..who in their right minds think they have a !!!!!!RIGHT!!!!!!! to end ANYONES life simply because of a inconvenience that will be placed on them??? IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE PREGNANT STOP SPEADING YOUR LEGS!!! You GAVE UP your RIGHT to do with your body as you want when YOU HAD SEX!!!then you ask the government (my tax dollars)to PAY to murder that child because you dont want the responsibility of being a parent???

If YOU want to murder a child that YOU created then YOU need to do so on you're OWN DIME NOT MINE!!!

On Guns..why do you call the cops when someone breaks into your home?? CAUSE THEY HAVE GUNS!!!not because they can do paperwork,not because they can put the perps in jail,but because they are ABLE TO PROTECT YOU!! Yet YOU can protect yourself with your RIGHT to bear arms.cops take mins to get to your home,if you exercise you're right to bear arms your protection is within arms reach.

Why should we be pumping BILLIONS of dollars into global warming that has been proven to be a hoax?idk why don't you all stop driving cars,flying in planes,and shopping at places where the goods are delivered by nasty ass diesel trucks?? Nope cant do that can we..

To those that are against Trump i say this,dont forget that he didn't just pop into the white house,WE THE PEOPLE put him in there..the majority of us are sick of the corrupt system,the gay rights,the abortion,the war on Christianity, constantly trying to take our guns,all of the politically correct garbage.This is OUR TIME for change and to lead this country in a different direction..GO TRUMP!!!!!

Oo and BTW you can label me whatever the hell you want.the time of your hateful lables making a hill of beans are through..to hell with political correctness,GO FREEDOM OF SPEACH AND OPINION!!!

Also If this message offended or hurt anyones little feelings please feel free to print it out and shove it right up your liberal brainwashed globalist undercarriage...