Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?

[Psychstache]

Indeed the protestant-catholic rivalry throughout the first half of the twentieth century is under-appreciated today. The waves of Italian and Irish immigrants were subject to mistrust partly because of this divergence in faith. Were he elected, Biden would be only the second Roman Catholic to serve as President.

Agreed. While obviously not perfect, I recently watched The Tudors series from a few years ago and thought it did a great job of showcasing the conflict in a variety of ways.

One way it still shows is through the prominent and extensive network of private catholic schools across the US that persists even now. This network was built up as the universal public school system was established on protestant rhetoric and values, so Catholics built their own system as an alternative.

[talltexan]

Was that Trudeau the younger or Trudeau the elder?

[OtherJen]

Zealotry makes sense.  The US has always been a Christian nation.

You can never be elected president of the United States unless you openly profess your Christianity.  Even if you are openly Christian with a long history of following the Christian faith, you can be politically attacked (and have political damage done) by people saying that you're secretly Muslim - we all learned this when Obama was president.

The idea that you can be president and not Christian is theoretically possible, but has never been borne out in reality.

It has been a Protestant nation, not a Christian nation.  People criticized JFK's nomination because he was Roman Catholic, so he would be controlled by the Pope.

Specifically Protestant of the Prosperity Gospel variety (i.e., wealth and health are signs of God's favor).

[J Boogie]

Indeed the protestant-catholic rivalry throughout the first half of the twentieth century is under-appreciated today. The waves of Italian and Irish immigrants were subject to mistrust partly because of this divergence in faith. Were he elected, Biden would be only the second Roman Catholic to serve as President.

What we lack in executive representation, we more than make up for in judicial representation in the US. And for some reason we're everywhere in the intelligence community.

[talltexan]

I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.

If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.

[Peter Parker]

As the OP, please help me restore my faith in the American Experiment...

For those of you that took a leap of faith and voted republican in 2016, tell me that you regret voting this way.  Tell me after 3+ years of a complete shit-show, that you wish you didn't....

Or, are we really this divided, that we can't see we have lost our way, that there is no hope for common ground...Over and over, in different social media platforms, I have asked whether people see the shit-show for what it is...a disaster.  But over and over people defend the actions of the president and the republican enablers.

Personally, I am not disappointed in Trump--he is exactly who I thought he was (okay, maybe a little worse).  What I am disappointed in, and afraid of, is that almost half of the country are still with him after this catastrophe...This makes no sense to me.  More than the possibility of Trump being re-elected, the idea that half of the country would be fine with this is completely demoralizing.

So help me out...If you voted for Trump (and the republican enablers) tell me you regret it...Please.

[YttriumNitrate]

I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.

What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.

[frugalecon]

I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.

What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.

This is a little OT, but I really wish that support would build for fixed terms (18 years?) for SCOTUS justices. It is ridiculous to have a gerontocracy playing such a major role in our lives. Along the same lines, I think that Presidents should really be people in their mid-to-late 50s. At that time you have experience, still decent physical stamina, and hopefully mental acuity.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.

What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.

This is a little OT, but I really wish that support would build for fixed terms (18 years?) for SCOTUS justices. It is ridiculous to have a gerontocracy playing such a major role in our lives. Along the same lines, I think that Presidents should really be people in their mid-to-late 50s. At that time you have experience, still decent physical stamina, and hopefully mental acuity.

If worst comes to worst, Presidents could just refuse to enforce what the Supreme Court says, because the Supreme Court doesn't have an army. It worked for Andrew Jackson after all.

[bacchi]

I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.

What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.

This is a little OT, but I really wish that support would build for fixed terms (18 years?) for SCOTUS justices. It is ridiculous to have a gerontocracy playing such a major role in our lives. Along the same lines, I think that Presidents should really be people in their mid-to-late 50s. At that time you have experience, still decent physical stamina, and hopefully mental acuity.

If worst comes to worst, Presidents could just refuse to enforce what the Supreme Court says, because the Supreme Court doesn't have an army. It worked for Andrew Jackson after all.

Right. This has recently been done with the federal drug laws and marijuana.

[frugalecon]

I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.

What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.

This is a little OT, but I really wish that support would build for fixed terms (18 years?) for SCOTUS justices. It is ridiculous to have a gerontocracy playing such a major role in our lives. Along the same lines, I think that Presidents should really be people in their mid-to-late 50s. At that time you have experience, still decent physical stamina, and hopefully mental acuity.

If worst comes to worst, Presidents could just refuse to enforce what the Supreme Court says, because the Supreme Court doesn't have an army. It worked for Andrew Jackson after all.

I don't understand this comment. You mean that Presidents could just kick some of the longer-serving Justices off of the Court? I don't think that would work.

[MDM]

So help me out...If you voted for Trump (and the republican enablers) tell me you regret it...Please.

Can't do exactly that, but perhaps provide some reason to believe all is not lost.

Going back to the OP and that original list:

1.  Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
2.  The republican tax plan
3.  Trump/Russia
4.  Less consumer protection (deregulation)
5.  Korea
6.  General lack of decorum
7.  Environmental issues/climate change issues
8.  Racial/religious (Muslim) tensions
9.  Women's rights/issues

1.  Hasn't happened (yet).  It might, but it might also be Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt spread by political opponents.
2.  One can debate the long term effects on national debt.  As someone who works a lot with the Tax-Aide and VITA programs, changes to returns were generally favorable for the "low to moderate" income folks served by those programs (100% favorable for the ones I saw).
3.  At one time there may have been legitimate concern that Trump would acquiesce to Putin expanding on the Crimean takeover.  Didn't happen.
4.  Methinks “Consumer Carnage” is a bit of a stretch to describe the drop from 133 to 84 described by that article.  Small business owners I know, however, are very much in favor of reducing what they see as overly bureaucratic regulations. 
5.  Similar to Russia: much ado about nothing.
6.  100% agree with you on this.  Just don't see it as "the" reason for a voting choice.  In other words, perhaps many people are not voting "for Trump" as a person, but rather are voting based on some weighted average of how they feel about Democratic and Republican positions on the plethora of issues in the country today.  Comments such as this post about disgusting beliefs, that expose the poster's own character more than anything, make me that much less likely to vote Democratic.
7.  Maybe I'm just a dumb hick from the sticks - or maybe not ;) - but the relative costs of the "cure" vs. the "disease" on this one remain highly debatable.
8.  Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...?  At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)
9.  Similar to the ACA - fear, etc., but no actual problems.  At least, that's what DW tells me.

In short, yes I agree that Trump says stupid things.  Thought he might change after winning the election, but his "my inauguration crowd was the biggest..." killed that notion quickly.  But there are policies implemented by people under him that appear better than what Biden would support.  To take one example, Dear Colleague: It’s over! Education Department rescinds controversial 2011 letter.  As parents with a daughter in college, and with a son in college, we think the current position preferable, and hope you don't find that a disastrous opinion.

If one considers that the press (both sides, of course) has a vested interest is building mountains out of molehills, and that the people with whom we work, play, volunteer, etc., can be good people whoever they may vote for, perhaps the future doesn't have to be as bleak as what Breitbart or MSNBC would have us believe if the "wrong" side wins.  Hope this helps....

[bbqbonelesswing]

I don't understand this comment. You mean that Presidents could just kick some of the longer-serving Justices off of the Court? I don't think that would work.

They don't have to kick anyone out- just refuse to enforce court decisions. As for the Jackson reference, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia#Enforcement

[GuitarStv]

8.  Racial/religious (Muslim) tensions

8.  Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...?  At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)

Interesting.

As a Trump supporter, you believe that racial tensions in the US are the same under Trump as under Obama?  I'd say that they seem at least a modicum worse to me.

[MDM]

...believe that racial tensions in the US are the same under Trump as under Obama?  I'd say that they seem at least a modicum worse to me.

"Tensions" in general seem higher due to COVID - both from the disease itself and the isolation to combat it.

The degree of specifically "racial" tension is more difficult to distinguish amidst the general trend.

[GreenToTheCore]

As the OP, please help me restore my faith in the American Experiment...
...
So help me out...If you voted for Trump (and the republican enablers) tell me you regret it...Please.

Does this make you feel better?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/27/all-the-republicans-who-have-endorsed-joe-biden-for-president/#4951ac207340

[GreenToTheCore]

In short, yes I agree that Trump says stupid things. 

Like saying, "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."?
How is this not blatant support for eugenics? The rest of the speech is pretty horrific, as well.


Sept 18th, Campaign Rally Speech Bemidji, Minnesota
Complete recording & transcript:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-campaign-rally-speech-bemidji-minnesota-transcript-september-18

[MDM]

Like saying, "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota. [They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
...
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers.]"?

How is this not blatant support for eugenics?

I really have no idea where one could pull eugenics out of that....

[GreenToTheCore]

Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?

[MDM]

Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?

None whatsoever, given the context.

[the_gastropod]

I have a friend I occasionally talk politics with that basically responds to Trump criticisms in the same fashion MDM is. Every point is looked at as though it’s an isolated incident, and lots of benefit of the doubt is given, and:
- When Trump says something cruel: “ahh, yea. He’s mean. So what?”
- When Trump says something stupid: “yea, Trump says stupid shit. But he’s harmless.”
- When Trump tells you what corrupt action he’s planning: “ohh, come on, he’s joking!”
- When Trump actually succeeds in awful policy (e.g. Muslim ban, “Anarchist jurisdictions”, LGBT military bans, etc): “it’s no big deal, he’ll just get blocked!”

Conservatives like that he has largely been unable to do much of anything (kind of a central tenet of Conservatism) and has gotten their big things done: judges in seats, taxes cut, regulations cut, antagonists heading up govt agencies (EPA, FDA, CDC, USPS, Dept. of Education, etc.) That the US has had one of the worst covid responses, despite being the most prosperous nation in history doesn’t matter. That the president is very publicly stating he does not agree to a peaceful transfer of power doesn’t matter. His history of tax fraud doesn’t matter. His awful statements about prisoners of war and military personnel don’t matter. His horrible personal behavior (cheating on his wife with a porn star as his child is being born, grab ‘em by the pussy, making fun of disabled reporters, etc.) doesn’t matter. Tear gassing peaceful US citizens so that he could get a photo op holding a religious text he’s never read in front of a religious building he’s never entered doesn’t matter. That 500 former military leaders have publicly endorsed his opponent doesn’t matter. That our international approval (and all the soft power that comes along with that) has been irreparably damaged doesn’t matter. That he doesn’t believe in climate change, and put a climate denier at the head of the EPA doesn’t matter. Conservatives like their marginally lower tax rates, and are deeply, DEEPLY terrified that the US is teetering on the edge of communism, and may soon look like Venezuela if Comrade Joe Biden is permitted to become president.

[Freedom2016]

Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?

None whatsoever, given the context.

This Frontline documentary about the 2016 election states that Trump supports eugenics.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-choice-2016/

Trump’s father instilled in him the idea that their family’s success was genetic, according to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.

“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” D’Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”

[MDM]

Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?

None whatsoever, given the context.

This Frontline documentary about the 2016 election states that Trump supports eugenics.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-choice-2016/

Trump’s father instilled in him the idea that their family’s success was genetic, according to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.

“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” D’Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”

So all those "miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers" bred eugenically to produce today's Minnesotans?

[Freedom2016]

Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?

None whatsoever, given the context.

This Frontline documentary about the 2016 election states that Trump supports eugenics.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-choice-2016/

Trump’s father instilled in him the idea that their family’s success was genetic, according to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.

“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” D’Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”

So all those "miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers" bred eugenically to produce today's Minnesotans?

Obviously.

Minnesota has the BEST miners, BEST lumberjacks, BEST fishermen, BEST farmers, BEST shipbuilders and BEST shopkeepers. Everyone is saying so. Oh, they're all white? Gee, hadn't noticed.

[GuitarStv]

...believe that racial tensions in the US are the same under Trump as under Obama?  I'd say that they seem at least a modicum worse to me.

"Tensions" in general seem higher due to COVID - both from the disease itself and the isolation to combat it.

The degree of specifically "racial" tension is more difficult to distinguish amidst the general trend.

When people hold multiple month long protests of policing and racial inequality in streets across the country . . . you detect no racial tension?  That's interesting.  Can you describe what actions would need to happen then, before you considered racial tension in the country to be elevated?  What scenario are you using as a gauge to determine racial tensions?

[sherr]

8.  Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...?  At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)

The Democrats have chosen a devout Catholic to represent their party in the highest office of the land, and you're trying to get us to believe they have an anti-Catholic bais?

[GreenToTheCore]

Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?

None whatsoever, given the context.

This Frontline documentary about the 2016 election states that Trump supports eugenics.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-choice-2016/

Trump’s father instilled in him the idea that their family’s success was genetic, according to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.

“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” D’Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”

So all those "miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers" bred eugenically to produce today's Minnesotans?

Maybe that's where the disconnect is. You added the content:
"They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
...
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers."

I can get behind those qualities: grit, talent, compassion, neighborly values, etc. 
However, none of those things are genetically predisposed. So what was the point of saying "A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different?" other than to support the thought that some people are innately genetically superior to others?

[RetiredAt63]

Given the travel conditions for poor immigrants back then, there probably are some genetic differences between those who left and those who arrived.  Things like the ability to survive dysentery and cholera.  I strongly doubt that is what Trump had in mind, though.

[MDM]

8.  Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...?  At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)

The Democrats have chosen a devout Catholic to represent their party in the highest office of the land, and you're trying to get us to believe they have an anti-Catholic bais?

No, just saying that Trump's nomination of ACB shows no anti-Catholic bias.

What Democrats in general or individual Democrats think would be a separate discussion.

[MDM]

...believe that racial tensions in the US are the same under Trump as under Obama?  I'd say that they seem at least a modicum worse to me.

"Tensions" in general seem higher due to COVID - both from the disease itself and the isolation to combat it.

The degree of specifically "racial" tension is more difficult to distinguish amidst the general trend.

When people hold multiple month long protests of policing and racial inequality in streets across the country . . . you detect no racial tension?  That's interesting.  Can you describe what actions would need to happen then, before you considered racial tension in the country to be elevated?  What scenario are you using as a gauge to determine racial tensions?

The RIP Ruth thread had a tangent regarding the conflation of racism and police brutality - see that instead of rehashing here.

[MDM]

Maybe that's where the disconnect is. You added the content:
"They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
...
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers."

I can get behind those qualities: grit, talent, compassion, neighborly values, etc. 
However, none of those things are genetically predisposed. So what was the point of saying "A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different?" other than to support the thought that some people are innately genetically superior to others?

It's a stump speech, in which a presidential candidate sprinkles a few state-specific comments. Note that it's usually best if the candidate remembers the correct state name. ;)

One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance.  Seems quite a stretch to go from that to eugenics, but maybe your dog-whistle hearing is genetically superior. :)

[sherr]

8.  Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...?  At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)

The Democrats have chosen a devout Catholic to represent their party in the highest office of the land, and you're trying to get us to believe they have an anti-Catholic bais?

No, just saying that Trump's nomination of ACB shows no anti-Catholic bias.

What Democrats in general or individual Democrats think would be a separate discussion.

Ah. Logical. It also shows that Trump has no anti-New Orleanian bias by exactly the same logic. So glad we got both of those cleared up then.

[GuitarStv]

8.  Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...?  At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)

The Democrats have chosen a devout Catholic to represent their party in the highest office of the land, and you're trying to get us to believe they have an anti-Catholic bais?

No, just saying that Trump's nomination of ACB shows no anti-Catholic bias.

What Democrats in general or individual Democrats think would be a separate discussion.

Ah. Logical. It also shows that Trump has no anti-New Orleanian bias by exactly the same logic. So glad we got both of those cleared up then.

Also shows that Trump has no anti-white people bias.  Another burning question that has been in much doubt.

:P

[MDM]

Ah. Logical. It also shows that Trump has no anti-New Orleanian bias by exactly the same logic. So glad we got both of those cleared up then.

Also shows that Trump has no anti-white people bias.  Another burning question that has been in much doubt.

Quite the pro-diversity candidate, that Trump. ;)

[MasterStache]

Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?

None whatsoever, given the context.

Good point.
Let's see his speech included a snide comment about refugees in the state. Followed by a nasty and baseless comment about Ilhan Omar (a Somali refugee who serves Minnesota in Congress) claiming she once married her brother. Trump then addressed the racial unrest in Minneapolis claiming Minneapolis would be gone if the National Guard hadn't stepped in. Then he moved on to gleefully boast about how an NBC correspondent of color, Ali Veshi, got injured with a non-lethal round.

With the racist warm-up complete, Trump then moves on to eugenics, which of course has been scientifically discredited. Seems context is pretty clear. I realize it doesn't matter. If you support trump then you are ok with all this and it's no big deal.

[MDM]

Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?

None whatsoever, given the context.

Good point.
Let's see his speech included a snide comment about refugees in the state. Followed by a nasty and baseless comment about Ilhan Omar (a Somali refugee who serves Minnesota in Congress) claiming she once married her brother. Trump then addressed the racial unrest in Minneapolis claiming Minneapolis would be gone if the National Guard hadn't stepped in. Then he moved on to gleefully boast about how an NBC correspondent of color, Ali Veshi, got injured with a non-lethal round.

With the racist warm-up complete, Trump then moves on to eugenics, which of course has been scientifically discredited. Seems context is pretty clear. I realize it doesn't matter. If you support trump then you are ok with all this and it's no big deal.

Would it have been OK if Velshi were white?

[GreenToTheCore]

Maybe that's where the disconnect is. You added the content:
"They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
...
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers."

I can get behind those qualities: grit, talent, compassion, neighborly values, etc. 
However, none of those things are genetically predisposed. So what was the point of saying "A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different?" other than to support the thought that some people are innately genetically superior to others?

It's a stump speech, in which a presidential candidate sprinkles a few state-specific comments. Note that it's usually best if the candidate remembers the correct state name. ;)

One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance.  Seems quite a stretch to go from that to eugenics, but maybe your dog-whistle hearing is genetically superior. :)

I'm still confused. What is your interpretation of Trump's purpose in mentioning genetics and Racehorse theory?

[MDM]

It's a stump speech, in which a presidential candidate sprinkles a few state-specific comments. Note that it's usually best if the candidate remembers the correct state name. ;)

One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance.  Seems quite a stretch to go from that to eugenics, but maybe your dog-whistle hearing is genetically superior. :)

I'm still confused. What is your interpretation of Trump's purpose in mentioning genetics and Racehorse theory?

OK, let's expand the context a bit (and repeating the good link you posted: Donald Trump Campaign Rally Speech Bemidji, Minnesota Transcript September 18 - Rev):

From St. Paul to St. Cloud, from Rochester to Duluth, and from Minneapolis, thank God we still have Minneapolis, to right here, right here with all of you great people, this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong. You have good genes. You know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota. They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.

Donald Trump: (01:56:11)
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers. But they all had one thing in common. They loved their families, they loved their countries, and they loved their God. Proud citizens like you helped build this country. And together we are taking back our country. We are returning power to you, the American people. With your help, your devotion and your drive, we are going to keep on working, we’re going to keep on fighting, and we are going to keep on winning, winning, winning.

I'll repeat: One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance. The key phrase being "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." Again, it's a stump speech so it wouldn't be surprising if he said the same thing in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc.

By no stretch of my imagination can I interpret that as him saying "you Minnesotans bred yourselves like racehorses into a Master Race."  Is that what you imagine?

[PKFFW]

OK, let's expand the context a bit (and repeating the good link you posted: Donald Trump Campaign Rally Speech Bemidji, Minnesota Transcript September 18 - Rev):

From St. Paul to St. Cloud, from Rochester to Duluth, and from Minneapolis, thank God we still have Minneapolis, to right here, right here with all of you great people, this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong. You have good genes. You know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota. They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.

Donald Trump: (01:56:11)
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers. But they all had one thing in common. They loved their families, they loved their countries, and they loved their God. Proud citizens like you helped build this country. And together we are taking back our country. We are returning power to you, the American people. With your help, your devotion and your drive, we are going to keep on working, we’re going to keep on fighting, and we are going to keep on winning, winning, winning.

I'll repeat: One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance. The key phrase being "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." Again, it's a stump speech so it wouldn't be surprising if he said the same thing in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc.

By no stretch of my imagination can I interpret that as him saying "you Minnesotans bred yourselves like racehorses into a Master Race."  Is that what you imagine?

Seriously?

Your expanded context specifically includes the part where he is telling the audience they have good genes and that a lot of it is about having good genes and race horse theory.

Why bring that up at all if not to suggest by omission that those who have not achieved the same success (however defined), don't have good genes.

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.

[the_gastropod]

It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....

[MDM]

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.

It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....

Some people can't imagine that anyone could disagree with what seems so clear to them, and will ascribe obtuseness or mental gymnastics to differing opinions.

[Kris]

It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....

Watching MDM debate on the forums always reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a pigeon.

[MDM]

It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....

Watching MDM debate on the forums always reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a pigeon.

Coming from one of those eugenically advanced Minnesotans.... :)

[PKFFW]

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.

It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....

Some people can't imagine that anyone could disagree with what seems so clear to them, and will ascribe obtuseness or mental gymnastics to differing opinions.

There's disagreeing with what seems clear to someone else and then there's simply denying what has been said.......in the very quote you yourself posted.

But I suppose, you are a Trump supporter, so denying something has been said, even in the face of a recording of what was actually said, should come as no surprise.

[GreenToTheCore]

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.

Thanks for the support. I feel like I'm in some alternate reality.

[Kris]

It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....

Watching MDM debate on the forums always reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a pigeon.

Coming from one of those eugenically advanced Minnesotans.... :)

“Minnesotan” is not a genetic reality. Regardless of what Trump the eugenicist thinks.

But hey, I’m flattered that you pay such close attention to me to know where I live.

[MDM]

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.

It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....

Some people can't imagine that anyone could disagree with what seems so clear to them, and will ascribe obtuseness or mental gymnastics to differing opinions.

There's disagreeing with what seems clear to someone else and then there's simply denying what has been said.......in the very quote you yourself posted.

But I suppose, you are a Trump supporter, so denying something has been said, even in the face of a recording of what was actually said, should come as no surprise.

The original question for this tangent was How is this not blatant support for eugenics?

If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.

Although, I'm assuming that eugenics implies some sort of selective breeding (and thus not anything Minnesota enforced).  Are you implying something else with the word "eugenics"?

[MDM]

It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....

Watching MDM debate on the forums always reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a pigeon.

Coming from one of those eugenically advanced Minnesotans.... :)

“Minnesotan” is not a genetic reality. Regardless of what Trump the eugenicist thinks.

But hey, I’m flattered that you pay such close attention to me to know where I live.

Just happened to notice that at one point because we have many relatives in Minnesota. :)

And it's good to see that Minnesota hasn't practiced eugenics.  Those relatives are a good bunch, however, so it must have been luck of the draw instead of forced breeding.

[MDM]

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.

Thanks for the support. I feel like I'm in some alternate reality.

I know the feeling.

[GreenToTheCore]

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.

It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....

Some people can't imagine that anyone could disagree with what seems so clear to them, and will ascribe obtuseness or mental gymnastics to differing opinions.

There's disagreeing with what seems clear to someone else and then there's simply denying what has been said.......in the very quote you yourself posted.

But I suppose, you are a Trump supporter, so denying something has been said, even in the face of a recording of what was actually said, should come as no surprise.

The original question for this tangent was How is this not blatant support for eugenics?

If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.

Although, I'm assuming that eugenics implies some sort of selective breeding (and thus not anything Minnesota enforced).  Are you implying something else with the word "eugenics"?

Interesting.
The original question was if "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." was blatant support for eugenics.

You quickly started referencing other snipped sections and then started leaving out the sections on genetics. Quite the redirection.

So again:
What is your interpretation of Trump's purpose in mentioning genetics and Racehorse theory?