Pop kicking Donald's ***

[Siro]

His campaign did have a large healthy dose of anti-clintonism. But it was more complex than just that. There was also a very prominent nationalism. As evidenced by is travel ban, border wall and DACA policies.

And don't tell me nationalism is not racism. The two go hand in hand.

 

[Gameface]

And don't tell me nationalism is not racism. The two go hand in hand.

In general yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to. Specifically in regard to Trump's brand of nationalism, yes 100%.

EDIT: I changed my first sentence from "... but not always" to what it says now because I'm not sure if there has ever been a successful nationalistic campaign that didn't involve racism.

 

[Siro]

In general yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to. Specifically in regard to Trump's brand of nationalism, yes 100%.

EDIT: I changed my first sentence from "... but not always" to what it says now because I'm not sure if there has ever been a successful nationalistic campaign that didn't involve racism.

I'm thinking the same thing. I've never seen a nationalist movement that revolves around liberalist ideals. It's always in the "blood and soil" flavor.

 

[Stoked]

I'll play along.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-just-hit-a-new-high/?utm_term=.e9827d7935db

These numbers are disgustingly higher than I would like. But none of them represent a majority. Certainly worse than the Ds but not a majority. Two of those only attribute that to 1/4 of Rs.

 

[Gameface]

What was going on in 2012?

 

[Gameface]

To be clear I was not trying to ignite a debate about why Trump got elected. I merely pointed out that people largely did NOT vote for Trump due to their racism. I was also looking for a legitimate response here as to the claim that the majority of republicans are directly represented by white supremacist agendas.

I simply believe that the gist of what Trump was getting at in his platform could largely be boiled down to an anti-Clinton agenda, and my own experience talking to people about it and and reading many article where people more or less said they were voting more against Clinton than for Trump.

I only have a couple minutes...

I don't think the majority of republicans are "racists" but I would ask them the question, "Do you feel like people who hold or express racists views are inherently bad people?" and I'd be really interested in how they answered that question. Because I think many f the non-racist Republicans don't feel like a person being racist disqualifies them from representing their party.

 

[Siro]

These numbers are disgustingly higher than I would like. But none of them represent a majority. Certainly worse than the Ds but not a majority. Two of those only attribute that to 1/4 of Rs.

What amazes me is that 20 years ago, almost half opposed marriage to a black person. In 1996!

 

[Stoked]

I only have a couple minutes...

I don't think the majority of republicans are "racists" but I would ask them the question, "Do you feel like people who hold or express racists views are inherently bad people?" and I'd be really interested in how they answered that question. Because I think many f the non-racist Republicans don't feel like a person being racist disqualifies them from representing their party.

That is a loaded question for sure. To me, while all of them are bad not all of them are equally bad.

For example. Someone who thinks Latinos are generally less intelligent isn't as bad as someone who thinks Latinos are all drug using leaches. Sometimes ignorance is the problem as opposed to person being a bad person. And sometimes they are just a POS lol. Where is that bar though as it's all bad? At what point is it an automatic disqualifier from being a good person?


[MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION], yeah that is crazy. Shows how far we have left to go. SMH, my first marriage was to a woman of a different "race".

 

[fishonjazz]

On here, having fundamentals is often seen as childish and sad, or outright ignored for an agenda.

We weren't discussing fundamentals on jazzfanz though. I have no comment on that and don't care to discuss it. We were discussing the reasoning that your co workers vote for people. I don't think basing your vote on who other people think you should or shouldn't vote for is a good way to do it. I think you should vote for who you think is the best candidate or who you like most.

It would be like if people on social media were constantly telling quin Snyder that he should start gobert and never play neto at the center position. And then quin starts neto at the 5 and starts giving gobert dnpcd's just to spite people. What good would that do quin Snyder or the jazz? (What good would voting for an unqualified, stupid piece of **** that they don't like do for your co workers)

Pretty dumb.

 

[♪alt13]

I'm thinking the same thing. I've never seen a nationalist movement that revolves around liberalist ideals. It's always in the "blood and soil" flavor.

That depends on what you mean by nationalism and what you mean by liberal. Using a Democrats definition you would be right but using Republican definitions you would be wrong.

What amazes me is that 20 years ago, almost half opposed marriage to a black person. In 1996!

Not surprised at all. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was higher. Honestly without Oprah and her daytime peers going on a biracial/interracial marriage understanding crusade in the nineties it would probably be much higher than it is today.

 

[Siro]

That depends on what you mean by nationalism and what you mean by liberal. Using a Democrats definition you would be right but using Republican definitions you would be wrong.



Not surprised at all. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was higher. Honestly without Oprah and her daytime peers going on a biracial/interracial marriage understanding crusade in the nineties it would probably be much higher than it is today.

I'm using the philosophical definition of liberalism typically used in political science and other fields. As in, the ideology built around a first principle of individual autonomy. All of the nationalist movement I've seen are based, at least partly, on some sort of ethnic or historical identity.

 

[LogGrad98]

His campaign did have a large healthy dose of anti-clintonism. But it was more complex than just that. There was also a very prominent nationalism. As evidenced by is travel ban, border wall and DACA policies.

Agreed. Obviously it wasn't just one thing, but that was large enough a piece that many people I know who voted for him did for just that reason, and I have read many articles where people expressed the same sentiment.

 

[LogGrad98]

In general yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to. Specifically in regard to Trump's brand of nationalism, yes 100%.

EDIT: I changed my first sentence from "... but not always" to what it says now because I'm not sure if there has ever been a successful nationalistic campaign that didn't involve racism.

From Trump's standpoint, yes, but I think many in favor of some form of nationalism are more concerned about things like welfare state, jobs, and terrorism than they are being overtly racist. Now there is of course a relatively large lunatic fringe right now, but really I think they have always been there, they just didn't have the voice they have now. This is really unprecedented in modern american politics.

 

[LogGrad98]

These numbers are disgustingly higher than I would like. But none of them represent a majority. Certainly worse than the Ds but not a majority. Two of those only attribute that to 1/4 of Rs.

Absolutely disgusting. To think it was ever that high a percentage and remains even as high as that shows, on both "sides" is sickening. As you said though, not a majority.

 

[Siro]

From Trump's standpoint, yes, but I think many in favor of some form of nationalism are more concerned about things like welfare state, jobs, and terrorism than they are being overtly racist. Now there is of course a relatively large lunatic fringe right now, but really I think they have always been there, they just didn't have the voice they have now. This is really unprecedented in modern american politics.

I don't see how nationalism can simply be worry over social programs and such. All the nationalists I talk to have the attitude that the government should focus on America, not help Mexico or China. Which is both ignorant and, let's be honest here, a bit racist.

 

[♪alt13]

I'm using the philosophical definition of liberalism typically used in political science and other fields. As in, the ideology built around a first principle of individual autonomy. All of the nationalist movement I've seen are based, at least partly, on some sort of ethnic or historical identity.

Yeah that's my favorite use of the word unfortunately very few people will understand you.

 

[LogGrad98]

I only have a couple minutes...

I don't think the majority of republicans are "racists" but I would ask them the question, "Do you feel like people who hold or express racists views are inherently bad people?" and I'd be really interested in how they answered that question. Because I think many f the non-racist Republicans don't feel like a person being racist disqualifies them from representing their party.

That is a loaded question for sure. To me, while all of them are bad not all of them are equally bad.

For example. Someone who thinks Latinos are generally less intelligent isn't as bad as someone who thinks Latinos are all drug using leaches. Sometimes ignorance is the problem as opposed to person being a bad person. And sometimes they are just a POS lol. Where is that bar though as it's all bad? At what point is it an automatic disqualifier from being a good person?


[MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION], yeah that is crazy. Shows how far we have left to go. SMH, my first marriage was to a woman of a different "race".

This is an interesting topics. Is it possible for there to exist "degrees" of racism, or is it all simply racist? Going on my experience in Germany, where racism takes a decidedly different tone that in the US, I think lots of what we think of as racist is really ignorance with no other outlet. I saw racist attitudes toward white germans (and Germans are decidedly "whiter" than the US) from immigrants much more strongly than I think I see the same thing here. But a lot of it was simply driven by the fact that they didn't interact with many Germans, didn't understand them or make an effort to, but when they got to know them their tone changes. Same on the other side. So is it valid to say there are degrees of racism and some are worse than others? I know many people who would say anything that even comes close is just pure racism/white supremacy, and others who would say blacks are not as smart but they aren't being racist about it.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't see how nationalism can simply be worry over social programs and such. All the nationalists I talk to have the attitude that the government should focus on America, not help Mexico or China. Which is both ignorant and, let's be honest here, a bit racist.

I wasn't really meaning to refer to people who identify as "nationalist" rather the tendency for people who favored Trump because they felt he would better protect American interests at home as a form of nationalism. This is a matter of degrees as well I think.

 

[Stoked]

I don't see how nationalism can simply be worry over social programs and such. All the nationalists I talk to have the attitude that the government should focus on America, not help Mexico or China. Which is both ignorant and, let's be honest here, a bit racist.

Would it still be racist if in this us and them scenario is "us" included members of all ethnicities as long as they were American?

 

[Siro]

Would it still be racist if in this us and them scenario is "us" included members of all ethnicities as long as they were American?

The ignorance about the value of globalism remains. But ya, I guess it is theoretically possible to base your nationalism on certain national ideals. Kind of like the type of proto-nationalism that existed in ancient Rome, which was built around the superiority of urbanized civilization, and lacked any clearly defined ethnic elements.