President Donald Trump

[B-Fly]

How Democrats Can Beat Trump's White Identity Politics

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-patterson-identity-politics_us_5a7391a6e4b01ce33eb12c61

I don't agree with everything in this op-ed (for example, I think it paints Trump's supporters with too facile and broad a brush), but I agree with its outline of how and why Trump will happily and strategically keep blowing those dog whistles and hoping to trigger liberal offense in the process, keeping the public debate on "identity politics" issues whenever he possibly can.

[senorsheep]

How Democrats Can Beat Trump's White Identity Politics

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-patterson-identity-politics_us_5a7391a6e4b01ce33eb12c61

I don't agree with everything in this op-ed (for example, I think it paints Trump's supporters with too facile and broad a brush), but I agree with its outline of how and why Trump will happily and strategically keep blowing those dog whistles and hoping to trigger liberal offense in the process, keeping the public debate on "identity politics" issues whenever he possibly can.

"Be careful what tools you employ to get what you want. Once you legitimize them, you might find them used against you one day."

I don't know how many times I said that back when I bothered to post in these threads. Y'all cheerfully sowed the demon seeds of identity politics as a campaign strategy, over and over while it worked to your benefit. Now an utter cretin has figured out how to use it against you, to the detriment of us all. As ye sow...

[DMT]

If I said you may be misreading my replies, would you be open to that? If not, read your replies through my eyes. And, maybe take a quick look in the mirror, as it may be that any response to you that doesn't agree with your position comes across as defensive. I've never meet you. I don't really care about your opinions, and this isn't me against you! Here, let me ask a question, with sarcasm included: How would you like me or Baldgriff to respond to you (other than supplication and a bow to your dominance)?

And, I should add, its not that I don't actually care about your opinions, its that I do respect your right to hold opinions with which I disagree or are different from mine. But, if you present opinions as facts, shouldn't we all expect someone to call us on that. I am certainly open to that.

It's of course possible I'm misreading your replies, but they seem defensive to me, as if I'm personally attacking you. BG reacted the same way and eventually left. He explicitly stated I was attacking him on more than one occasion, though, so lumping you together was sarcasm on my part.

I'm not sure I've ever claimed my opinions were facts and I certainly respect everyone's rights to post their opinions, whether they agree with mine or not. However, that being said, Trump's historical usage of bigoted rhetoric to smear segments of our society is not an opinion. We have the transcripts.

[Hornsby]

And, what you originally posted weren't facts either, which is what I reacted to! Now, you're posting transcripts which are facts, that are now being interpreted by the readers individually. And, apparently, I chose to not read them, hear them the same as those with a very critical eye/ear. Probably, because I'm a full blown Trumpster.

What I posted earlier was my opinion, BASED on the facts that I've posted since. I read those beforehand, but didn't feel it was necessary to add footnotes to said post...

You read them and interpret them however you will Bernie...it's really no big deal. CBB is 100% convinced that Trump was talking about MS-13, even though he never mentioned them. The Sheriff alluded to a scenario where he might not be able to turn in an individual Member of MS-13, and Trump turned it into an attack on a whole group of people, not necessarily MS-13, IMO.

[chancellor]

You have to ignore Donald Trump's entire political history to assume that's all he's really talking and thinking about.

Hardly. I mean, c'mon here - CNN can hardly be called a pro-Trump platform, and even they have stated in multiple forums (Twitter feed, online, morning show) that Trump was clearly referring to MS-13. Yahoo News, which also tilts pretty heavily left, also notes that the "animals" comment refers to MS-13.

[Bernie Brewer]

It's of course possible I'm misreading your replies, but they seem defensive to me, as if I'm personally attacking you. BG reacted the same way and eventually left. He explicitly stated I was attacking him on more than one occasion, though, so lumping you together was sarcasm on my part.

I'm not sure I've ever claimed my opinions were facts and I certainly respect everyone's rights to post their opinions, whether they agree with mine or not. However, that being said, Trump's historical usage of bigoted rhetoric to smear segments of our society is not an opinion. We have the transcripts.

So, why don't we do this, in a spirit of candor, openness, and without any intended defensiveness (I believe), let's talk it out. Here is my perspective and please take it for what its worth. There are those of us on this Board who are not liberals and/or Democrats, but we are much fewer in number. We are not a unified group that work in concert with each other in an anti-leftest coalition of any kind. We just choose, as individuals, to see things through a different lenses than the folks who out number us heavily on this board. Sometimes there is no difference, no matter what lens you look through. Most of us agree on any number of things. For instance, and it could even have been you for all I remember, but someone has posted, rather consistently, that we should all fight for the best President and politicians that put the needs of the country over party. Who doesn't agree with that! Were it only so simple! So we see things differently, but if you see me making up "facts" I'd expect to be called on that. I'll return the favor.

Then, just because I don't ascribe to all liberal ideals, it doesn't automatically make me X, whatever X is. I'm not something because I'm not something else. Earlier in this thread, I will admit that kinda I just threw up my hands (figuratively) when you said:

BB, for not being a Trump supporter, you sure give him the benefit of the doubt like one

I took that to mean that despite my denials, you see me as nothing more than a deplorable Trump supporter. I realize those weren't your words, but through my lenses, hopefully, you can see how I or BG or others not of the left, might read it that way. Maybe not?

My original post this morning was intended to counter some of what Horns posted about, whom I do respect and understand skews left (maybe not left, but he sure doesn't skew right). He noted his utter disgust with Trump (which I get) and cited five or six things as the basis for that disgust. IMHO, several of those were not as factual accurate and therefore, how could they, in and of themselves, make one so disgusted. Collectively, if true, I completely understand. He was posting off the cuff and giving an opinion, which he is allowed to do, of course. I don't think he intended to analyze each one of his bullets, so I offered a counter to only a couple of them. There has been a lot of hand wringing about things that are not important, IMHO, in this thread and at times it seems we're just being liberal (no pun intended) with facts. But it also feels like the only ones who get called on for being liberal with facts are those not on the left.

If this is an open community discussion, which I hope it to be, when someone points out that there are differing opinions or interpretations of "facts" ( I hear Laurel, saw a White and Gold Dress, BTW) there isn't a need to claim that the only way you can believe that is if you are a blind supporter or just plain dumb or being obtuse. So, respectfully, think how you are writing your responses, and I promise to consider mine as well. I often edit mine many times to ensure I'm saying what I mean. Unfortunately, that often leads to someone quoting an early version of my posts!

[chancellor]

"Be careful what tools you employ to get what you want. Once you legitimize them, you might find them used against you one day."

I don't know how many times I said that back when I bothered to post in these threads. Y'all cheerfully sowed the demon seeds of identity politics as a campaign strategy, over and over while it worked to your benefit. Now an utter cretin has figured out how to use it against you, to the detriment of us all. As ye sow...

There were a number of LULZ in that article, but this one was my favorite: "But Trump threw decorum out the window." That's extremely rich coming from a guy who worked with the DNC to utterly demonize Mitt Romney.

[Bernie Brewer]

There were a number of LULZ in that article, but this one was my favorite: "But Trump threw decorum out the window." That's extremely rich coming from a guy who worked with the DNC to utterly demonize Mitt Romney.

I read the article even though I'm clearly not the intended audience, as its on Huff Post, and there were some funnies! But, after parsing through the slams on conservatives, there is merit to running on things that you can win on. Tell why and how you're going to fix what's broken instead of telling me who broke it. Both parties could use more of this. The whole identity politics thing sucks.

[DMT]

Fair enough. My snarky comment wasn't intended to say you defend all things Trump because I know that you do not. And I will readily admit that I find him absolutely repugnant and am not going to give him any benefit of the doubt when he says or does things that are open to interpretation.

It's funny, the one thing I've applauded him on is his efforts in NK and was immediately criticized by TW, so there ya go! I read a great article in the Atlantic yesterday and it's not directly relevant to this thread, but one sentence applies to us all, "Americans have trouble telling the difference between a social critique and a personal insult".

[DMT]

The whole identity politics thing sucks.

What do you mean by this? Yes, there are plenty of instances of over-reaction, and the so-called SJWs are often obnoxious, but anyone who is not a straight white well-off male has dealt with some form of harassment and/or discrimination in their lives. It is easy for us straight white males to roll our eyes and bemoan the victimization culture that has arisen, but we will never understand what it's like and so really should just STFU when it comes to minorities rising up to defend/assert themselves. That's just my opinion of course. But anyone who denies that there is systemic racism/sexism/straightism (not sure if that is a word, but it should replace homophobia IMO) in our country is denying facts like incarceration rates, payroll discrepancies across gender, laws denying homosexuals adoption rights, etc.

[senorsheep]

There were a number of LULZ in that article, but this one was my favorite: "But Trump threw decorum out the window." That's extremely rich coming from a guy who worked with the DNC to utterly demonize Mitt Romney.

When I read articles like that one, or similar nonsensical fantasy from the GOP side, I marvel at how many people in the country live in completely separate realities from the one I know.

[chancellor]

What do you mean by this? Yes, there are plenty of instances of over-reaction, and the so-called SJWs are often obnoxious, but anyone who is not a straight white well-off male has dealt with some form of harassment and/or discrimination in their lives. It is easy for us straight white males to roll our eyes and bemoan the victimization culture that has arisen, but we will never understand what it's like and so really should just STFU when it comes to minorities rising up to defend/assert themselves. That's just my opinion of course. But anyone who denies that there is systemic racism/sexism/straightism (not sure if that is a word, but it should replace homophobia IMO) in our country is denying facts like incarceration rates, payroll discrepancies across gender, laws denying homosexuals adoption rights, etc.

Since it's your opinion, that's fair enough. My opinion is that the "so-called SJWs" are not merely often obnoxious, they're repressive and destructive. They're every bit as judgemental as the worst of the religious right, and while you pretty much know where even the worst of the religious right stands, many SJWs views blow with the wind. Moreover, many of them have no compunction about destroying individuals careers and privacy.

In terms of bemoaning the victimization culture that has arisen, I may never understand what it's like to be a black male, but when enough black males bemoan the victimization culture, I'm pretty comfortable agreeing with them. So, no, in fact, hell no, I won't STFU, especially when it comes to the stupid and outrageous levels of whining and victimization that take place and should be utterly mocked...say, like Halsey whining about how hotel shampoos are racist.

As for the systemic "ism" issue, I'll just say that correlation does not always (or even often) equal causation.

But that's just my opinion.

[DMT]

Since it's your opinion, that's fair enough. My opinion is that the "so-called SJWs" are not merely often obnoxious, they're repressive and destructive. They're every bit as judgemental as the worst of the religious right, and while you pretty much know where even the worst of the religious right stands, many SJWs views blow with the wind. Moreover, many of them have no compunction about destroying individuals careers and privacy.

In terms of bemoaning the victimization culture that has arisen, I may never understand what it's like to be a black male, but when enough black males bemoan the victimization culture, I'm pretty comfortable agreeing with them. So, no, in fact, hell no, I won't STFU, especially when it comes to the stupid and outrageous levels of whining and victimization that take place and should be utterly mocked...say, like Halsey whining about how hotel shampoos are racist.

As for the systemic "ism" issue, I'll just say that correlation does not always (or even often) equal causation.

But that's just my opinion.

Valid points, but careers and privacy being destroyed doesn't approach the destruction wrought by centuries of racism, not even close.

So am I interpreting your last comment correctly to mean that you don't think systemic racism exists in our justice system?

ETA: also, how many is "enough black males bemoan[ing] victimization culture"? Out of 21.5 million, surely that number must be more than a handful, I hope.

[Bernie Brewer]

What do you mean by this? Yes, there are plenty of instances of over-reaction, and the so-called SJWs are often obnoxious, but anyone who is not a straight white well-off male has dealt with some form of harassment and/or discrimination in their lives. It is easy for us straight white males to roll our eyes and bemoan the victimization culture that has arisen, but we will never understand what it's like and so really should just STFU when it comes to minorities rising up to defend/assert themselves. That's just my opinion of course. But anyone who denies that there is systemic racism/sexism/straightism (not sure if that is a word, but it should replace homophobia IMO) in our country is denying facts like incarceration rates, payroll discrepancies across gender, laws denying homosexuals adoption rights, etc.

Maybe I should have put quotes around identity politics.

I have absolutely no problem with people of color, or shared circumstance, using their individual identities as a basis for their personal politics, i.e. identity politics. What I have a problem with is people co-opting identity for political purposes, such as what I think the Democrats and I as you call them, Social Justice Warriors, have done for many years. I understand on this board that's an unpopular opinion. But, I can find boards were even admitting that racism exists, which I readily admit, would get me run out of town on a rail.

It pisses me off when, for example, Hillary Clinton, (or more recently Michele Obama) says something along the lines of women who voted Republican voted against their own interests, as if to imply that all women should vote for her because she is a woman. Sarah Palin, as I recall was a woman, who was running for the second highest office in the land and women didn't flock to her. If "identity politics" is just words, then it sucks.

Personally, I love that women are charged up after the Times Up and #Metoo movement/moments. I'm glad they are running for office in large numbers. I wish more Republican women were running. But, watch what happens to Leah Vukmir, in Wisconsin, a former classmate of mine from High School, who is running in the GOP primary for US Senate. If she wins the primary, which I hope she does, she'll run against a Democratic woman, Tammy Baldwin. It will be very nasty. Leah's character will assassinated by every high powered Dem in the country. Such a shame, but very predicable.

[DMT]

I don't understand why identity politics is ok for individuals unless they're running for office? Historically, white men have dominated the political landscape so why can't they promote their difference from that status quo? Should someone's race or gender be their only platform? Of course not, but nor should they feel obligated to stay silent either.

A message board where acknowledging racism gets one ostracized sounds like a real party