Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mnino

  1. KJ, I was not contesting the fact that there is a historical legacy of racism in the rust belt. My point was quite the opposite. My main point was that no one would be calling these blue collar folks racists right now if they had voted for Bernie Sanders (which is not inconceivable). I illustrated below how the voting went in three of the four states that "turned red" for Trump to show that these folks for the most part didn't have a problem voting for a Democrat in the past (especially for Obama). If the racists are a majority, then this majority elected Obama. Now, if they are the minority, then how could they have elected Trump? I'm not trying to disqualify your experience. There are racist people in the Rust Belt. I just don't believe that ALL blue collar voters supported Trump because of racial/gender issues. They voted because of economical reasons. However, they ALL are now being labelled bigots and xenophobes. Once again, if Bernie had won these states (which he could if you look at how much support the Democratic party had in the Rust Belt for the past 4 election cycles) nobody would be calling blue collar workers racists on the media. They would be congratulating them for standing against hate. Well, where were the Democrats that just didn't bother voting this time? Why weren't they standing up against hate? The Obama coalition didn't think that Trump was bad enough to make them vote for her. The numbers speak for themselves. The Democrats lost this election because they neglected the blue collar workers that used to vote for them. MICHIGAN 2000 Gore (51.3%) beats Bush (46.2%) - 4,232,711 voted 2004 Kerry (51.3%) beats Bush (47.8%) - 4,839,252 voted 2008 Obama (57.3%) destroys McCain (40.89%) - 5,010,129 voted 2012 Obama (54.21%) kills Romney (44.71%) - 4,730,961 voted 2016 - Trump (47.6%) barely beats Hillary (47.3%) - 4,790,917 voted so far (turn out was higher than 2012 but less than 2008 and 2004) Now check how red the state became in 2016: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan OHIO 2008 - Obama won 2012 - Obama won Now check the 2016 results: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/ohio WISCONSIN 2008 - Obama won 2012 - Obama won Now check the 2016 results: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin
  2. As you have mentioned, these folks in the Rust Belt are going through a tough time for a while now just like the African Americans, Latinos and other minorities have been for decades. But the kicker is that if they complain about their disadvantage (not being more educated and therefore not getting better jobs) they are reminded that because they are white they will never completely have it as bad as a racial minority. You see, they still have white privilege to help them. So, should they be content with their current economic situation because other folks have it worse? Doesn't that sound absurd? Can you see how that kind of rhetoric from the Democratic base can breed the kind of white nationalism you also mentioned? I've yet to find a Republican talking about triggers and white privilege. The democratic party was very vocal throughout this campaign about defending the Black Lives Matter movement, the illegal immigrants and refugees. But if Bernie Sanders had not brought up the blue collar worker situation front and center, I'm not sure Hillary would have done anything to move from the center to the left. Now, I'm not defending the bitterness that some blue collar workers may have fostered towards people that they think are getting better treatment (or at least, more attention) than they are, but to dismiss their frustrations with a system that has left them behind is only going to alienate them. Oh, but they should just suck it up and go to school and get better jobs... Well, you can say the same about other minorities (but if you do, you may be called a few names). Ironically, people in the Rust Belt areas mostly voted for Obama because of how pro-union the Democrats have been. The Dems have been claiming themselves to be the party of the blue collar worker for decades now while painting the Repubs as pro big business. But as you also mentioned, these places have gotten progressively worse economically over the last 30 years and Hillary was a continuation of the same old same old in their eyes. Did anybody believe that she would do anything different than Obama did? Blue collar workers surely didn't believe it. Bernie Sanders would have gotten their vote and nobody would be calling them racists and xenophobes right now. So, I'm not disagreeing with you per se but wanted to expand the notion that blue collar workers voted solely because of race and gender.
  3. Racists, homophobes and xenophobes have been voting since voting began. Your idea that only now they suddenly decided to vote is flawed in my opinion. Trump won because of the blue collar vote in the Rust Belt (Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania in particular). Are you implying that these are the racists, homophobes and xenophobes?
  4. People with a college degree are incapable of hating and discriminating, right? They learned in college all about privilege and triggers. They could never.
  5. Yes, you have the right to be suspicious. The whole world has no clue what this guy is going to do. However, I thought your histrionics were more than a little OTT and I thought a bit of sarcasm would go along with it. My sense of humor just couldn't let it pass. But I'm not here to offend anyone. I did find snippets of your post to be ridiculous. Does that make you ridiculous in my eyes? No. People are more than their opinion on a certain subject. Don't take it personal. I honestly hope you can calm down. Things may get worse for a while but America in not doomed.
  6. Demographics have changed a lot for these last 12 years and Trump only won because he ran against Hillary Clinton. He will probably end up having less votes than McCain and Romney in the end. So, unless he improves his numbers next time, he will lose. The blue collar democrats that overwhelmingly voted for Trump had previously voted for Bernie Sanders. Hillary married the man that signed NAFTA, that was just too easy for Trump AND Sanders to exploit. Could he be re-elected? Yes, if he does a good job in improving the economy because in the end it's all about the economy. My point was that if he does not deliver his promises, he'll probably be out and, depending on how bad he is, he can bring down the Senate majority with him. I don't see how that is unreasonable.
  7. I very aware that Trump will try to decimate Obama's legacy and progressive advancements. But will that make America a Russian-style democracy? No. Is America suddenly under the control of white supremacists? Hell, no! That's hysteria. Things will change and it may be harder for the LGBT community to advance some of its agenda. If he does a bad job, he'll be out in 4 years and probably will help the Repubs lose the Senate (they are not losing the House anytime soon). The presidential electorate is in favor of Dems. They lost this time because of arrogance. They will not lose next time. Well, unless Trump does a great job. All of this overreaction is just energizing his supporters.
  8. Wow. You grossly overestimate the power of the President. Unlike other democracies, America has very strong checks and balances that would prevent him from accomplish what you described. You need a Xanax. The world is not ending.
  9. Sorry but we would all be rolling our eyes if people were petitioning to impeach Hillary had she won. Democracy worked. People have to deal with it. Wanna protest? Go ahead, it's your right. Impeachment? Get a life.
  10. Yep, this was an election for the Democratic Party to lose given the changing demographics and, boy, did it ever lose... Most of the establishment Dems got there by some sort of Clinton connection (they have been there forever...) and so no one was willing to challenge to coronation of Hillary. It's clear to see now that Sanders would have beat Trump easily in the Rust Belt. Dems picked the wrong candidate, the only one that could have lost to Trump. This election was lost not because more people voted for Trump. They didn't and this graph totally proves that. The election was lost because of the candidate and what she stood for, not her gender. This commentator has some good insights on why most Democrats didn't vote for Hillary. "On the surface, it's astounding that a man who ripped off thousands of people who worked for him became the champion of the regular Joe. But, as Bernie Sanders reiterated (...) , the problem is that people have ceased to see a difference between the parties, particularly on economic issues. I'll briefly cite a few examples. Starting out with NAFTA, Bill Clinton forced "free trade" upon the party. I warned multiple times during the election that Trump would make inroads with voters in the Rust Belt unless Democrats made a clean break from corporate trade deals. Around the globe, these deals are a key tool to drive down wages, exploit workers and prosecute global class warfare. But, the current president still serves up the malarkey about the benefits of these deals. Bill Clinton's broader economic agenda was even more corrosive. During Clinton's so-called "good economy," the decline of organized labor continued. The president, and his secretary of labor, Robert Reich, did very little to arrest the decline. No Democratic president was more focused on letting business interests off the leash. He gave more power to media companies, triggering consolidation and a powerful wave of concentration of the media into a few hands. The average person, not steeped in policy, understood this every time he or she opened their skyrocketing cable bills. Hand-in-glove with Wall Street, Clinton got rid of the Glass Steagall Act, which removed the separation between commercial banks, insurers and investment banks, allowing the self-dealing manipulation of mortgages and interest rates and accelerating the shifting of huge wealth into the hands of a few. Again, the average person, just trying to make ends meet, eventually got the sharpest end of that spear when millions of people lost their homes, jobs and retirement in the thundering collapse known as the Great Recession, which, for many, has been a depression. There is so much more: A planet dying because for years fossil fuel interests were coddled. Welfare reform. Mass incarceration of people of color, which had both racial and economic consequences. The praise of the Clinton years, and red-faced defense by its leader, was always couched in contrast to the Reagan and two Bush Administrations. Great. Feeding off the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party has become riddled with lobbyists, billionaires, and hustlers who pocket huge sums of money by running either nonprofit "think tanks" or election-cycle networks, and politicians who, indeed, are focused mostly on reelection. Surrounding the party are extremely well-paid non-profit leaders, who end up defending the status quo. Chief component of the Clinton machine in recent years, the Clinton Foundation operated somewhat out of sight. The big donations streaming from anti-union powerhouses like Wal-Mart or big financial entities like Bank of America not only whitewashed the policies of interests directly opposed to what the Democratic Party should stand for, but they also clouded the deeper systemic crisis within the party. We can only address climate change, poverty and global inequality by axing the very system benefiting many of the donors to the Clinton Foundation." It's too late now and lessons will be learned. Hopefully, the right to vote in this country will not be taken for granted so much. But I do have a hard time with people, especially those living outside the US, that keep labeling this country as racist and bigoted. People, Trump didn't even get the majority of the votes! And I bet that a lot of people voted against her and not for him. Now, if you're a big Hillary fan, this may be hard to understand because you most likely had to turn a blind eye to the many red flags in her past. People do that often. They turn a blind eye to the negative traits of a person when they believe that his or her good traits trump (pun intended) their flaws. Hillary fans were willing to lose this election by supporting a very disliked establishment candidate when Americans in general has been voting for change ever since Obama was elected. Obama won against Hillary because he was the candidate of change! He beat her because she was the establishment. If dems did it, then why would the general electoral body not do it? I also think it is very disingenuous to paint a misogynistic brush over the election's results. Fathers talking to their daughters and explaining why America still does not have a female president need to be careful in not putting the blame on a constituency that cannot handle a woman in power. That's bull. There are people like that (a lot of them even) but they are the minority, they can't elect presidents. Dems voted for a man instead of woman back in 2008, is the race of person more important than their gender? Dems voted for Obama because they wanted change and not because she was a woman. Hillary's track record and not her gender is what worked against her.
  11. Hillary: Go home, I don't want to talk you tonight...
  • Create New...