Hey, Trump Voters

[music lover]

HRC's comments on Byrd were really glowing, yes. And I'm still not totally sure what to make of that.

Had Trump given glowing support to a KKK recruiter would you "not know what to make of it", or would you have an unflattering opinion of him?? My goodness, you are completely incapable of critical thinking.

I see a material difference between that (hopefully honest) reflection and regret, and the tolerance (if not stoking) of racism & white supremacist attitudes going on by PEOTUS.

There is a difference...Hillary praised a known racist and KKK recruiter. Trump has disavowed white supremacists several times, and you somehow find that worse?

I suggest that you get professional help.

[MOD NOTE: Attack the argument, not the arguer.]

[KBecks]

.... As I reeled from the election results I realized (afresh) what a liberal bubble I've been living in. Since then I've connected with a couple of conservative friends/family to better understand their perspective. One of those ppl is a second cousin who lives in the rural midwest and is a very strong 2nd Amendment supporter. It has been a very eye opening exchange, made better by both of us being interested in each other's perspectives, willing to do research, and generally extending each other some basic respect. I don't consider her a racist, she doesn't consider me a whining libtard.

That is wonderful.  That is a good outcome of the election, and I think it's vitally important that we don't isolate ourselves from people who think differently than we do.   It is good to listen to all the perspectives, respectfully, and not treat each other like mortal enemies over stupid politicians!!!!   

And it is about respect, and I would add, love. 

I would not expect that you and your conservative friends ever come to a perfect agreement.  We all see things differently.  We all have different experiences, and that is actually beautiful.  We are not meant to all agree perfectly, we should be able to disagree in an honorable way and still get along with one another.   Actually we may agree on most things, and sometimes it's good to focus on the big picture, that we have a lot in common and like each other and can enjoy these relationships.  Politics should not be a relationship ender.   It's such a tiny part of who we are. 

Politicians want us frothing at the mouth at each other because they get power from that.  They want people angry, fed up, afraid, because they get votes that way.  It is honestly rather sick.  Media personalities on all sides will make it ugly and extreme and then you have people who don't want to love each other anymore.  That is sad!  It is wrong!

[MasterStache]

Goodness gracious. Is everyone is convinced that the 'other' side is incapable of understanding what they are trying to say, or is it simply less work to argue a straw man? I feel this may be rhetorical.

In the case of my own family dynamics, it is MUCH easier to not discuss politics at all. There is no open mind for folks who are blatantly, openly racist. It's certainly not a straw-man.

Racism should be countered and ignorance fought at every opportunity.  Hiding from people who disagree with one's views, and not standing up to open racism and blatant sexism is a cop out; i would never want to model that behavior for my daughter.

Look I'm not trying to be mean but I think perhaps you are royally confused. The strained relationship is precisely from confronting such issues time and time again. Not running from them. Actually the person I speak of has disappeared for years at a time. I gave them an ultimatum. Since they refuse to change, they are absolutely not to bring that crap into my house or around my kids. Any racist or even confrontational comments will be an automatic "get the hell out of my house."

Perhaps if you knew more about the situation you would understand. I'll leave that for a Dr. Phil episode. Well probably more like Jerry Springer.

[KBecks]

You are well within your rights to set boundaries for behavior in your home. 

[ncornilsen]

Nobody in this world has your back like family.

Remember, that is true for many families but not all. A difference in voting this election might just be the last straw, highlighting how very different someone is from their family. And any family that's going to throw this election in your face, gloating, obviously does not have your back at all times. If they did, they'd at least have the sensitivity to keep their glee to themselves when the non-happy family member was around. Family that will taunt you over this? Fuck them. This probably isn't the only time or circumstance in which they'd do that.

I agree with this. Ncornilsen, in theory yes, no one has your back like family. But the problem is that sometimes, family feels free to verbally abuse you if you don't conform to what they think and feel. There's a limit to how much abuse someone is going to be willing to take in those circumstances. I'd never tell anyone to keep tolerating hatred from a family member in a misguided attempt to keep the relationship alive.

I hope that eventually, with time, families that are being ripped apart will be able to realize that they are hurting people they claim to love, and that this will overcome some of the painful polarization.

Fair enough. Everyone's family is different, I suppose. You're free to draw your line of verbal abuse wherever you'd like. If someone's being personally disrespectful to you for your voting choice, then by all means stay away from that person. If they simply are talking about politics like level headed people, maybe even some spirited but respectful discussion, then avoiding that reflects more on the person who is cutting family ties than anything... which is my original posting put another way.

If the topic comes up and you start telling people that they're a racist, rape supporting bigot for voting their way, (barring any actual racist/biggotted statements) you're kind of throwing the first punch of disrespect, fyi.

[Kris]

Nobody in this world has your back like family.

Remember, that is true for many families but not all. A difference in voting this election might just be the last straw, highlighting how very different someone is from their family. And any family that's going to throw this election in your face, gloating, obviously does not have your back at all times. If they did, they'd at least have the sensitivity to keep their glee to themselves when the non-happy family member was around. Family that will taunt you over this? Fuck them. This probably isn't the only time or circumstance in which they'd do that.

I agree with this. Ncornilsen, in theory yes, no one has your back like family. But the problem is that sometimes, family feels free to verbally abuse you if you don't conform to what they think and feel. There's a limit to how much abuse someone is going to be willing to take in those circumstances. I'd never tell anyone to keep tolerating hatred from a family member in a misguided attempt to keep the relationship alive.

I hope that eventually, with time, families that are being ripped apart will be able to realize that they are hurting people they claim to love, and that this will overcome some of the painful polarization.

Fair enough. Everyone's family is different, I suppose. You're free to draw your line of verbal abuse wherever you'd like. If someone's being personally disrespectful to you for your voting choice, then by all means stay away from that person. If they simply are talking about politics like level headed people, maybe even some spirited but respectful discussion, then avoiding that reflects more on the person who is cutting family ties than anything... which is my original posting put another way.

If the topic comes up and you start telling people that they're a racist, rape supporting bigot for voting their way, (barring any actual racist/biggotted statements) you're kind of throwing the first punch of disrespect, fyi.

I think this is a bit of a straw man. SisterX is specifically talking about situations where family is throwing the first punch. In my case, the "first punch" was thrown one hell of a long time ago, when I was called fag lover, n*gger lover, etc. for objecting to racist and homophobic jokes and remarks thrown around casually at family events. And mocked for going to college. And mocked for choosing to leave my rural birthplace to live in the city. And mocked for being a libtard. I have not once ever called any of those family a single insulting name. But if I dare to say that a vote for Trump condones certain beliefs and actions that I think are abhorrent, now I'm throwing the first punch of disrespect? Sorry, no.

[KBecks]

Do you still visit your family or have you cut them off?   I'm sorry your family is so difficult.  It would be hard to maintain relations with that, but  knowing that their views are so bad, you either avoid the discussion or stay away, right?  Like, you're not going to change them, they're not going to change you, how do you have a peaceful visit?  By not talking about any of that and maybe baking a pie or something.  If you can stand each other enough to bake a pie....   I'm sorry, that's got to be very hard.

[ncornilsen]

Nobody in this world has your back like family.

Remember, that is true for many families but not all. A difference in voting this election might just be the last straw, highlighting how very different someone is from their family. And any family that's going to throw this election in your face, gloating, obviously does not have your back at all times. If they did, they'd at least have the sensitivity to keep their glee to themselves when the non-happy family member was around. Family that will taunt you over this? Fuck them. This probably isn't the only time or circumstance in which they'd do that.

I agree with this. Ncornilsen, in theory yes, no one has your back like family. But the problem is that sometimes, family feels free to verbally abuse you if you don't conform to what they think and feel. There's a limit to how much abuse someone is going to be willing to take in those circumstances. I'd never tell anyone to keep tolerating hatred from a family member in a misguided attempt to keep the relationship alive.

I hope that eventually, with time, families that are being ripped apart will be able to realize that they are hurting people they claim to love, and that this will overcome some of the painful polarization.

Fair enough. Everyone's family is different, I suppose. You're free to draw your line of verbal abuse wherever you'd like. If someone's being personally disrespectful to you for your voting choice, then by all means stay away from that person. If they simply are talking about politics like level headed people, maybe even some spirited but respectful discussion, then avoiding that reflects more on the person who is cutting family ties than anything... which is my original posting put another way.

If the topic comes up and you start telling people that they're a racist, rape supporting bigot for voting their way, (barring any actual racist/biggotted statements) you're kind of throwing the first punch of disrespect, fyi.

I think this is a bit of a straw man. SisterX is specifically talking about situations where family is throwing the first punch. In my case, the "first punch" was thrown one hell of a long time ago, when I was called fag lover, n*gger lover, etc. for objecting to racist and homophobic jokes and remarks thrown around casually at family events. And mocked for going to college. And mocked for choosing to leave my rural birthplace to live in the city. And mocked for being a libtard. I have not once ever called any of those family a single insulting name. But if I dare to say that a vote for Trump condones certain beliefs and actions that I think are abhorrent, now I'm throwing the first punch of disrespect? Sorry, no.

Strawman? I don't think so...  It's the way family could take being called racists or bigots for their voting choices, and an example of how one might not want to approach any discussion of politics in their family, and that if you don't want to be verbally abused, don't do it yourself.  Of course previous history comes into play here, but If you're sitting down for Christmas dinner, and someone says "I am glad trump got elected" without anything racist or hateful, or previous actions like your family's, and you say "well, trump voters are XYZ", then you are the asshole.

I'm just trying to say sheltering one's kids from different but respectful viewpoints is a BAD thing to do... That cutting off family because they don't see the world the exact way is a myopic thing to do. Clearly, In your case, a long history certainly would indicate they are not respectful and are toxic. But that's NOT most, or even many, trump supporters.

[former player]

And again, I am dealing with the Fish and Wildlife Service which is buried in the executive branch of the government. Their actions have ignored Federal Laws. So we are dealing with unelected bureaucrats at the highest (federal) level of government that do not answer to the people unless we get a very large number of people like Standing Rock. Or we vote Republican.

If your government is ignoring your laws then you find a lawyer and bring a judicial review case against them.  And in the meantime you talk to your elected representatives, at all levels.  And you talk to the press, and you engage social media, to let everyone know that the government is acting unlawfully.

Your problems with a government which is acting unlawfully will not be resolved by electing a President who acts unlawfully.

We are doing all of those things already. Why do you think I keep bringing it up? Because for every standing rock there are probably 4 similar situations that slip by because it lacks the drama.

My point was that people's perspectives on government vary wildly. I know a Liberal who finds everything above perfectly acceptable because he isn't the one paying the price. Times that by several million people over several years and you guys wonder how Trump can get elected? Democrats attitude for a long time seems to have been "Shit flows downhill."

There is, sadly, a tendency for people to think that a country is a democracy because it has elections.  The politicians are happy for this to be thought the case because elections are what is most important to most of them.  But there are in fact two necessary conditions for a country to be a democracy, and the second one is the rule of law.  And the "rule of law" means that the law applies to the politicians as well as to the people.  "Be you never so high, the law is above you."

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs
 

[Kris]

I agree with this. Ncornilsen, in theory yes, no one has your back like family. But the problem is that sometimes, family feels free to verbally abuse you if you don't conform to what they think and feel. There's a limit to how much abuse someone is going to be willing to take in those circumstances. I'd never tell anyone to keep tolerating hatred from a family member in a misguided attempt to keep the relationship alive.

I hope that eventually, with time, families that are being ripped apart will be able to realize that they are hurting people they claim to love, and that this will overcome some of the painful polarization.

Fair enough. Everyone's family is different, I suppose. You're free to draw your line of verbal abuse wherever you'd like. If someone's being personally disrespectful to you for your voting choice, then by all means stay away from that person. If they simply are talking about politics like level headed people, maybe even some spirited but respectful discussion, then avoiding that reflects more on the person who is cutting family ties than anything... which is my original posting put another way.

If the topic comes up and you start telling people that they're a racist, rape supporting bigot for voting their way, (barring any actual racist/biggotted statements) you're kind of throwing the first punch of disrespect, fyi.

I think this is a bit of a straw man. SisterX is specifically talking about situations where family is throwing the first punch. In my case, the "first punch" was thrown one hell of a long time ago, when I was called fag lover, n*gger lover, etc. for objecting to racist and homophobic jokes and remarks thrown around casually at family events. And mocked for going to college. And mocked for choosing to leave my rural birthplace to live in the city. And mocked for being a libtard. I have not once ever called any of those family a single insulting name. But if I dare to say that a vote for Trump condones certain beliefs and actions that I think are abhorrent, now I'm throwing the first punch of disrespect? Sorry, no.

Strawman? I don't think so...  It's the way family could take being called racists or bigots for their voting choices, and an example of how one might not want to approach any discussion of politics in their family, and that if you don't want to be verbally abused, don't do it yourself.  Of course previous history comes into play here, but If you're sitting down for Christmas dinner, and someone says "I am glad trump got elected" without anything racist or hateful, or previous actions like your family's, and you say "well, trump voters are XYZ", then you are the asshole.

I'm just trying to say sheltering one's kids from different but respectful viewpoints is a BAD thing to do... That cutting off family because they don't see the world the exact way is a myopic thing to do. Clearly, In your case, a long history certainly would indicate they are not respectful and are toxic. But that's NOT most, or even many, trump supporters.

I'm saying that you are positing "if you do X" statements that no one here has said they are doing. Case in point bolded. The examples that have been given here are of people who feel the need to not participate in family events because they are being harassed by their Trump-supporting family members.

[gentmach]

And again, I am dealing with the Fish and Wildlife Service which is buried in the executive branch of the government. Their actions have ignored Federal Laws. So we are dealing with unelected bureaucrats at the highest (federal) level of government that do not answer to the people unless we get a very large number of people like Standing Rock. Or we vote Republican.

If your government is ignoring your laws then you find a lawyer and bring a judicial review case against them.  And in the meantime you talk to your elected representatives, at all levels.  And you talk to the press, and you engage social media, to let everyone know that the government is acting unlawfully.

Your problems with a government which is acting unlawfully will not be resolved by electing a President who acts unlawfully.

We are doing all of those things already. Why do you think I keep bringing it up? Because for every standing rock there are probably 4 similar situations that slip by because it lacks the drama.

My point was that people's perspectives on government vary wildly. I know a Liberal who finds everything above perfectly acceptable because he isn't the one paying the price. Times that by several million people over several years and you guys wonder how Trump can get elected? Democrats attitude for a long time seems to have been "Shit flows downhill."

There is, sadly, a tendency for people to think that a country is a democracy because it has elections.  The politicians are happy for this to be thought the case because elections are what is most important to most of them.  But there are in fact two necessary conditions for a country to be a democracy, and the second one is the rule of law.  And the "rule of law" means that the law applies to the politicians as well as to the people.  "Be you never so high, the law is above you."

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs

I am aware of the Magna Carta. We are trying to work within the system to halt it. We are trying to hold them accountable. We have alerted other government agencies to what is happening.

[SisterX]

Strawman? I don't think so...  It's the way family could take being called racists or bigots for their voting choices, and an example of how one might not want to approach any discussion of politics in their family, and that if you don't want to be verbally abused, don't do it yourself.  Of course previous history comes into play here, but If you're sitting down for Christmas dinner, and someone says "I am glad trump got elected" without anything racist or hateful, or previous actions like your family's, and you say "well, trump voters are XYZ", then you are the asshole.

I'm just trying to say sheltering one's kids from different but respectful viewpoints is a BAD thing to do... That cutting off family because they don't see the world the exact way is a myopic thing to do. Clearly, In your case, a long history certainly would indicate they are not respectful and are toxic. But that's NOT most, or even many, trump supporters.

At this point in the game, people tend to know which way most family members voted. And yes, it's quite common for people to gloat when their side has "won".

ncornilsen, I didn't call anyone racist or bigoted or whatever else for not voting for Obama. Nor did I gloat. I've labeled as racist the people who clearly are (I'm looking step-grandpa's way) and, I think, done no more than question how people who don't hold those views (or claim not to) can overlook someone who so clearly is representing/stoking/supporting those ideologies. Which is a legitimate question! It's also not "throwing the first punch", it's part of that reasoned dialogue you claim we should have. I honestly want to know how someone can wrap their mind around all of that, because it's so foreign to me.

When we told step-grandpa at Thanksgiving not to talk politics, it's because he's always been incredibly vocal about his views, racist and sexist and otherwise. We knew he'd want to foment trouble and no one wanted that to ruin the family togetherness of the holiday. The fact that it pissed him off could be perceived as "the first punch", I suppose, if you're completely willing to overlook the fact that it was done in the name of family harmony.

I would also argue against your point that it's "not even many" Trump supporters who are "X bad quality". I would very much agree with "not all".

[ncornilsen]

Strawman? I don't think so...  It's the way family could take being called racists or bigots for their voting choices, and an example of how one might not want to approach any discussion of politics in their family, and that if you don't want to be verbally abused, don't do it yourself.  Of course previous history comes into play here, but If you're sitting down for Christmas dinner, and someone says "I am glad trump got elected" without anything racist or hateful, or previous actions like your family's, and you say "well, trump voters are XYZ", then you are the asshole.

I'm just trying to say sheltering one's kids from different but respectful viewpoints is a BAD thing to do... That cutting off family because they don't see the world the exact way is a myopic thing to do. Clearly, In your case, a long history certainly would indicate they are not respectful and are toxic. But that's NOT most, or even many, trump supporters.

At this point in the game, people tend to know which way most family members voted. And yes, it's quite common for people to gloat when their side has "won".

ncornilsen, I didn't call anyone racist or bigoted or whatever else for not voting for Obama. Nor did I gloat. I've labeled as racist the people who clearly are (I'm looking step-grandpa's way) and, I think, done no more than question how people who don't hold those views (or claim not to) can overlook someone who so clearly is representing/stoking/supporting those ideologies. Which is a legitimate question! It's also not "throwing the first punch", it's part of that reasoned dialogue you claim we should have. I honestly want to know how someone can wrap their mind around all of that, because it's so foreign to me.

When we told step-grandpa at Thanksgiving not to talk politics, it's because he's always been incredibly vocal about his views, racist and sexist and otherwise. We knew he'd want to foment trouble and no one wanted that to ruin the family togetherness of the holiday. The fact that it pissed him off could be perceived as "the first punch", I suppose, if you're completely willing to overlook the fact that it was done in the name of family harmony.

I would also argue against your point that it's "not even many" Trump supporters who are "X bad quality". I would very much agree with "not all".

You and Kris clearly have some family history that's a bit extenuating. But, to quote someone else further up this thread, who does demonstrate the attitude in question:

Any family member who thought it was acceptable to vote for a rapist is not someone I would have around myself or my daughter.  That crap is unacceptable and I may not be able to stop it, but I can stop it from being around me and my child.  And someone who accepts rapists does not have my back, thank you very much.

This statement clearly falls in the camp of the poster telling her child that all trump supporters are rape supporters, then locks the child away in a bubble. (not to mention the basis of the objection is wrong on a number of facets. ) Note that is says "ANY family member". Not asshole uncle jack, or step grandpa who hasn't kept with the times. Any family member. Any. So there's your strawman.

(BTW - I was called racist for not voting for Obama by my cousin in '08. I don't hold that against everyone else I know who voted for Obama.)

[Gin1984]

I agree, although it is hard to do, and it depends on the situation.  Sometimes it is easier to get the hell out.   

Two examples,  up north, my husband's grandparents went to a bar, and the owner after getting to know you for a while, would start to say racist things -- like telling the story of a white woman with a dark child and how it made him feel sick.
Rather than argue with this man in his bar, people stopped going there and the bar went out of business.

Also we found ourselves at my in-law's friends extended family's house on Christmas Day with our toddler.  They were watching a football game, and one of the extended family members started yelling at the TV about niggers and the white guy made the touchdown.  We left.  I barely speak to this friend of my in-laws when he visits my in-laws home. 

Now, I don't feel that I can tell my in-laws to dump their friend of probably 30 years because he's got a brother who yells nigger at the TV.  I know this man is a racist, the friend of my in-laws, but I don't want to engage him.  If he starts saying things, I might pipe in but I'm not going to initiate it, because I care about my relationship with my in-laws.   Who will they stick with, their friend of 30 years or their daughter in law?  I don't know but I don't want to make them have to choose that.  Plus, they are older.  We may only have them for another 5 or 10 years.  We want to love them while they are here and I cannot fix this man or undo their friendship. 

Most racism is very subtle.  I noticed once how this man acted uncomfortable / weird towards a black waitress and he once complained that a black man looked at him at a gas station.  I did not realize the depth until I saw his extended family on Christmas.  But I almost never see this person and I don't want to see him.

It was jaw dropping for me to see these two racists, I thought most racism has died out.  Ha, no.   I just don't get out much.

It is much better for me to try to be a good example for my kids.   If I see or hear something I feel I can confront it depending on where I am, I am not going to confront a racist when they are with all their family in their own home.  I might confront someone in their own business, but I think that experience was extremely rare and no one is quite that stupid.   When a contractor in your own home makes a comment to his co-worker about the Latino contractors coming the next day, do you confront it or leave it alone?  I left it alone. 

It's not easy to handle.

As for all the rape talk, I don't know if Donald Trump raped anyone.  I know that calling him a rapist was a tactic to freak out women into being scared of him.

No, it is not about scaring anyone. It is about calling a spade, a spade.  It is about the fact that research has shown that describing rape is seen as less bad than saying he (or she) raped.  So yes, I am going to keep calling his actions what they are.  Not to make people fearful, but to make people aware.

[Gin1984]

Strawman? I don't think so...  It's the way family could take being called racists or bigots for their voting choices, and an example of how one might not want to approach any discussion of politics in their family, and that if you don't want to be verbally abused, don't do it yourself.  Of course previous history comes into play here, but If you're sitting down for Christmas dinner, and someone says "I am glad trump got elected" without anything racist or hateful, or previous actions like your family's, and you say "well, trump voters are XYZ", then you are the asshole.

I'm just trying to say sheltering one's kids from different but respectful viewpoints is a BAD thing to do... That cutting off family because they don't see the world the exact way is a myopic thing to do. Clearly, In your case, a long history certainly would indicate they are not respectful and are toxic. But that's NOT most, or even many, trump supporters.

At this point in the game, people tend to know which way most family members voted. And yes, it's quite common for people to gloat when their side has "won".

ncornilsen, I didn't call anyone racist or bigoted or whatever else for not voting for Obama. Nor did I gloat. I've labeled as racist the people who clearly are (I'm looking step-grandpa's way) and, I think, done no more than question how people who don't hold those views (or claim not to) can overlook someone who so clearly is representing/stoking/supporting those ideologies. Which is a legitimate question! It's also not "throwing the first punch", it's part of that reasoned dialogue you claim we should have. I honestly want to know how someone can wrap their mind around all of that, because it's so foreign to me.

When we told step-grandpa at Thanksgiving not to talk politics, it's because he's always been incredibly vocal about his views, racist and sexist and otherwise. We knew he'd want to foment trouble and no one wanted that to ruin the family togetherness of the holiday. The fact that it pissed him off could be perceived as "the first punch", I suppose, if you're completely willing to overlook the fact that it was done in the name of family harmony.

I would also argue against your point that it's "not even many" Trump supporters who are "X bad quality". I would very much agree with "not all".

You and Kris clearly have some family history that's a bit extenuating. But, to quote someone else further up this thread, who does demonstrate the attitude in question:

Any family member who thought it was acceptable to vote for a rapist is not someone I would have around myself or my daughter.  That crap is unacceptable and I may not be able to stop it, but I can stop it from being around me and my child.  And someone who accepts rapists does not have my back, thank you very much.

This statement clearly falls in the camp of the poster telling her child that all trump supporters are rape supporters, then locks the child away in a bubble. (not to mention the basis of the objection is wrong on a number of facets. ) Note that is says "ANY family member". Not asshole uncle jack, or step grandpa who hasn't kept with the times. Any family member. Any. So there's your strawman.

(BTW - I was called racist for not voting for Obama by my cousin in '08. I don't hold that against everyone else I know who voted for Obama.)

Actually, given that you are speaking about me, that is NOT what I am telling my daughter nor what I said.  I am telling her they don't care if he raped someone, at least not enough to make it a deal breaker.  Same with his racists comments or other bigoted responses. And no, I won't have her around those people.  Especially given the increase in violence (both hate crimes and sexual assaults) seen correlating with Trump's win.
You may want to pretend that voting someone who has made racist comments does not imply approval or acceptance of those statements but it does.  Those who voted for him decided that Clinton was worse than a bigoted rapist.  There reasons for that decision are their own, but it does say that rape, sexual assault, racism etc is more acceptable to them than the alternative.   

[golden1]

As for all the rape talk, I don't know if Donald Trump raped anyone.  I know that calling him a rapist was a tactic to freak out women into being scared of him. 

Nope.  Around twenty girls and  women are calling him a rapist or sexual assaulter,(http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct) so to call him a racist is legitimate if you believe that at least one out of ten aren't lying.  I'm scared of him, not directly, but I'm scared of what the election of someone who even on the off chance he isn't a rapist most definitely sees women more as decorations to flaunt his status than as living, breathing people with body autonomy.  That sets a terrible example for my daughter, and frankly all other women out there. 

[SisterX]

As for all the rape talk, I don't know if Donald Trump raped anyone.  I know that calling him a rapist was a tactic to freak out women into being scared of him. 

Nope.  Around twenty girls and  women are calling him a rapist or sexual assaulter,(http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct) so to call him a racist is legitimate if you believe that at least one out of ten aren't lying.  I'm scared of him, not directly, but I'm scared of what the election of someone who even on the off chance he isn't a rapist most definitely sees women more as decorations to flaunt his status than as living, breathing people with body autonomy.  That sets a terrible example for my daughter, and frankly all other women out there.

I also think that people who dismiss his "grab her by the pussy" comments are clearly people who haven't had that happen to them. (I have.) The fact that he thinks they "let him" because he's rich is different from whether or not they actually wanted him to do that. Maybe they didn't say anything at the time because, for whatever reason, the fight just didn't seem worth it to them. Does that make it acceptable? No. Never.

Many rapes aren't reported because women don't think they'll be believed. Add money into the factor (ie: he's rich and she maybe isn't) and I think people are even less likely to report because they don't have the funds to prove their case. People dismissing these women's concerns/accusations just proves them right that they won't be believed. It's despicable.

And yes, there have been a few cases in which someone was accused of a rape that was demonstrably false. That's despicable too. But it does not negate the women who have legitimately been raped. To claim that it's not a problem because a very few bad actors have tried to use it for personal reasons does not mean that it's not a very real problem. Anyone who routinely dismisses accusations of rape because "they're not always true", you do realize that you're dismissing women entirely as not being good enough to give testimony, right? You're dismissing the ideas and experiences of an entire gender.

I have to agree with Gin, I don't want my daughter anywhere near Trump or his ilk. Considering that he sexualizes his own daughter, and has since she was a child (what was she, eight? when he first started commenting on her figure and what her boobs would be like?), how does he view other people's daughters? Not as people, that's for sure. That's a scary man to give power to, and I don't want him or anyone who thinks his views are acceptable to take a hand in raising my daughter. She's better than them and whatever they'd try to make her into.



This dismissing of Trump's own comments and actions? That's what I've been trying to point out to Trump supporters in this thread. It's like you can't believe someone could be as horrible as he truly is, so you don't. Willful ignorance is, well, ignorant. Someone asked what they thought liberals meant by "uneducated". Plenty of educated people are still bafflingly uneducated, because they don't bother to find any information that doesn't suit their worldview. The people who feed on fake news and then double down when it's proven to be false (music lover), that's uneducated. The people who dismiss having an education and a curious mind, that's uneducated. No matter how many fancy degrees you have, if you're not willing to actually learn and change your opinions when presented with new evidence, that's uneducated.

And yeah, I've changed my stance on a number of issues when presented with evidence. Sometimes it takes a while, but I have changed quite a lot over the years. I just have a rigorous standard for what I consider evidence, so that I don't fall into the hearsay and fake news traps that so many willfully dive into.

I have yet to see anything that makes me think Trump is anything more than a burning trash heap of a human being.

[Malaysia41]

Anyone who routinely dismisses accusations of rape because "they're not always true", you do realize that you're dismissing women entirely as not being good enough to give testimony, right? You're dismissing the ideas and experiences of an entire gender.

I couldn't agree more.

I was walking along one day and suddenly was grabbed, groped and pulled along toward the bushes. Luckily I got away. My reaction was weird. Placid. (shock?) My mom called me a few minutes after I arrived home. I told her what happened in an off handed way - like- huh, check out what happened on Mulberry street. She told me to call the campus police. For some odd reason I didn't think I needed to but she insisted.  So I did. They sent two cops over and they listened to me. I can't imagine them not taking me seriously. Even as,in my shock, I myself wasn't processing the event coherently.

So I have a really hard time with people who use 'waiting to report' as an indictment against a victim. I feel like I'm a pretty rational  person, but it took me a long time to process this properly. I can't imagine if there was some power dynamic going on.

I realize this is different from straight up 'he said she said' stuff. But it  opened my eyes to the emotional dynamics of sexual aggression.

[Kris]

As for all the rape talk, I don't know if Donald Trump raped anyone.  I know that calling him a rapist was a tactic to freak out women into being scared of him. 

Nope.  Around twenty girls and  women are calling him a rapist or sexual assaulter,(http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct) so to call him a racist is legitimate if you believe that at least one out of ten aren't lying.  I'm scared of him, not directly, but I'm scared of what the election of someone who even on the off chance he isn't a rapist most definitely sees women more as decorations to flaunt his status than as living, breathing people with body autonomy.  That sets a terrible example for my daughter, and frankly all other women out there.

I also think that people who dismiss his "grab her by the pussy" comments are clearly people who haven't had that happen to them. (I have.) The fact that he thinks they "let him" because he's rich is different from whether or not they actually wanted him to do that. Maybe they didn't say anything at the time because, for whatever reason, the fight just didn't seem worth it to them. Does that make it acceptable? No. Never.

Many rapes aren't reported because women don't think they'll be believed. Add money into the factor (ie: he's rich and she maybe isn't) and I think people are even less likely to report because they don't have the funds to prove their case. People dismissing these women's concerns/accusations just proves them right that they won't be believed. It's despicable.

And yes, there have been a few cases in which someone was accused of a rape that was demonstrably false. That's despicable too. But it does not negate the women who have legitimately been raped. To claim that it's not a problem because a very few bad actors have tried to use it for personal reasons does not mean that it's not a very real problem. Anyone who routinely dismisses accusations of rape because "they're not always true", you do realize that you're dismissing women entirely as not being good enough to give testimony, right? You're dismissing the ideas and experiences of an entire gender.

I have to agree with Gin, I don't want my daughter anywhere near Trump or his ilk. Considering that he banging-his-daughter/]sexualizes his own daughter, and has since she was a child (what was she, eight? when he first started commenting on her figure and what her boobs would be like?),[/b] how does he view other people's daughters? Not as people, that's for sure. That's a scary man to give power to, and I don't want him or anyone who thinks his views are acceptable to take a hand in raising my daughter. She's better than them and whatever they'd try to make her into.



This dismissing of Trump's own comments and actions? That's what I've been trying to point out to Trump supporters in this thread. It's like you can't believe someone could be as horrible as he truly is, so you don't. Willful ignorance is, well, ignorant. Someone asked what they thought liberals meant by "uneducated". Plenty of educated people are still bafflingly uneducated, because they don't bother to find any information that doesn't suit their worldview. The people who feed on fake news and then double down when it's proven to be false (music lover), that's uneducated. The people who dismiss having an education and a curious mind, that's uneducated. No matter how many fancy degrees you have, if you're not willing to actually learn and change your opinions when presented with new evidence, that's uneducated.

And yeah, I've changed my stance on a number of issues when presented with evidence. Sometimes it takes a while, but I have changed quite a lot over the years. I just have a rigorous standard for what I consider evidence, so that I don't fall into the hearsay and fake news traps that so many willfully dive into.

I have yet to see anything that makes me think Trump is anything more than a burning trash heap of a human being.

Maybe eight for Ivanka. But Tiffany was one when he commented/mused on what her boobs would be like.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-comments-1-year-old-daughter-breasts-article-1.2591961

He is trash.

[KBecks]

I'll agree with no reservation that Trump is icky.  He was not my first choice as a candidate.  I would have been happier with a President Walker or a President Rubio.

For all the complaints, many are icky, the only one of actual rape is his wife, and that is during a divorce.  I don't know what really happened. The report sounds dramatized, it was in a book but I don't know.  I will never know.

The reason people voted for Trump though is not because they approve of his ickyness, it's because they want things like, a more conservative Supreme Court.   There is no way I could have ever voted for Hillary.   

For kids, I don't talk with my children much about the president, the sitting president or president elect.  We concern ourselves with family issues.

I just remember from To Kill a Mockingbird -- what is rape?   intercourse without consent.  My kids are kids.  They don't need to know too much at their ages, and they don't need a lot of drama, they don't need to feel scared, and the president has no real impact on their current lives.  The boys know things like stranger danger and that there are bad people out there, and how to handle uncomfortable situations.  That's about it.

I don't talk with my kids much about politics, or try to make them feel that certain voters are right or others are wrong.  We don't get into it at all, and I think that keeping them out of politics is generally good.  If they have questions we'll talk. 

[Metric Mouse]

I'll agree with no reservation that Trump is icky.  He was not my first choice as a candidate.  I would have been happier with a President Walker or a President Rubio.

For all the complaints, many are icky, the only one of actual rape is his wife, and that is during a divorce.  I don't know what really happened. The report sounds dramatized, it was in a book but I don't know.  I will never know.

The reason people voted for Trump though is not because they approve of his ickyness, it's because they want things like, a more conservative Supreme Court.   There is no way I could have ever voted for Hillary.   

For kids, I don't talk with my children much about the president, the sitting president or president elect.  We concern ourselves with family issues.

I don't talk with my kids much about politics, or try to make them feel that certain voters are right or others are wrong.  We don't get into it at all, and I think that keeping them out of politics is generally good.  If they have questions we'll talk.

I too tend to focus on my sphere of control. Changing the minds of Trump supporters, or Hillary supporters, is almost certainly beyond my control. Though I do find their opinions very interesting, as they are so drastically different than my own, I don't expend any energy worrying about them or trying to change them or argue that their motives are somehow different than what they state.

[former player]

I'll agree with no reservation that Trump is icky.  He was not my first choice as a candidate.  I would have been happier with a President Walker or a President Rubio.

For all the complaints, many are icky, the only one of actual rape is his wife, and that is during a divorce.  I don't know what really happened. The report sounds dramatized, it was in a book but I don't know.  I will never know.

The reason people voted for Trump though is not because they approve of his ickyness, it's because they want things like, a more conservative Supreme Court.   There is no way I could have ever voted for Hillary.   

For kids, I don't talk with my children much about the president, the sitting president or president elect.  We concern ourselves with family issues.

I just remember from To Kill a Mockingbird -- what is rape?   intercourse without consent.  My kids are kids.  They don't need to know too much at their ages, and they don't need a lot of drama, they don't need to feel scared, and the president has no real impact on their current lives.  The boys know things like stranger danger and that there are bad people out there, and how to handle uncomfortable situations.  That's about it.

I don't talk with my kids much about politics, or try to make them feel that certain voters are right or others are wrong.  We don't get into it at all, and I think that keeping them out of politics is generally good.  If they have questions we'll talk.

I'm sorry to say this, but deliberate harm to children, whether sexual abuse/rape or otherwise, is overwhelmingly done by family, friends and acquaintances, not by strangers.  If your children are to be safe, they need to know how to say "no" whoever it is and they need to know who is their safe space.  And the person who is that safe space needs to be someone who won't say "my kid says it happened, [other person I trust] says it didn't, I don't know whether it did or not".

[KBecks]

We've gone over that with my kids and I would believe them if they told me a family member hurt them. We especially have told them that we don't do secrets, ever.  We don't put it out there and suggest that any relative is going to hurt the kids, but we talk to them about if things make them uncomfortable and it's OK to say no or to not want a hug, etc.  I also watch my kids and watch the adults in our family and the coaches etc.  And we review it every once in a while.  We should probably review it again with them soon.  But politics?  No.  We don't go around saying the new President is a rapist.   

It is completely different to say I don't know what happened between the Trumps and whether or not I will believe my children if they bring anything to me.   I know my kids.  I don't know the Trumps.

[jrhampt]

I've also been groped.  I also think Trump is despicable.  I'm also shocked that so many people excuse his behavior and the comments out of his own mouth.  It's disgusting and there is no excuse.

[sol]

the comments out of his own mouth.  It's disgusting and there is no excuse.

For most people, their "excuse" seems to be that they believed the lies about Clinton being a criminal mastermind and traitor to her country, out for personal profit instead of looking out for the country, with a record of failures and concerted efforts to harm poor people.  It was all made up, of course, but they only had to sell the lie to a minority of voters for a single day.

In reality, Trump fails each of those criticisms spectacularly and Clinton continues to survive them unscathed.  She's never even been charged with a crime, for example, while Trump loses lawsuits with some regularity.  But reality matters less than public perception, and in this case people perceived Trump being a rapist as less problematic than Clinton being a traitor.  Truth doesn't need to enter into it.  Let that be a lesson to future politicians; don't be a good candidate, just make sure your opponent looks worse.

I'm mostly serene about it by now.  America gets what America deserves, and right now that appears to be the destruction of our foundational principles and looting of the public coffers by an idiot con man.  So be it.  No empire lasts forever, maybe our turn is drawing to a close.

The world is a big place full of big hearted people.  If you can accept that America won't be the shining beacon of freedom and equality it once tried to be, and is just another banana republic rife with nepotism and graft and oppression of the less fortunate, then you can either ride the gravy train (if you are rich and white) or find a home that more closely aligns with your personal values (no matter who you are).  The only people who are bent out of shape about this election are the ones who are too personally invested in the idea of the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Patriots who want America to be great are disappointed, of course, but everyone else should be getting on with their lives by now.  Your freedoms are not a birthright, they can be taken away in a heartbeat, and I think we all need to be reminded of that sometimes.  Thank you, Mr. Trump, for reminding us how fragile America really was.

[Kris]

the comments out of his own mouth.  It's disgusting and there is no excuse.

For most people, their "excuse" seems to be that they believed the lies about Clinton being a criminal mastermind and traitor to her country, out for personal profit instead of looking out for the country, with a record of failures and concerted efforts to harm poor people.  It was all made up, of course, but they only had to sell the lie to a minority of voters for a single day.

In reality, Trump fails each of those criticisms spectacularly and Clinton continues to survive them unscathed.  She's never even been charged with a crime, for example, while Trump loses lawsuits with some regularity.  But reality matters less than public perception, and in this case people perceived Trump being a rapist as less problematic than Clinton being a traitor.  Truth doesn't need to enter into it.  Let that be a lesson to future politicians; don't be a good candidate, just make sure your opponent looks worse.

I'm mostly serene about it by now.  America gets what America deserves, and right now that appears to be the destruction of our foundational principles and looting of the public coffers by an idiot con man.  So be it.  No empire lasts forever, maybe our turn is drawing to a close.

The world is a big place full of big hearted people.  If you can accept that America won't be the shining beacon of freedom and equality it once tried to be, and is just another banana republic rife with nepotism and graft and oppression of the less fortunate, then you can either ride the gravy train (if you are rich and white) or find a home that more closely aligns with your personal values (no matter who you are).  The only people who are bent out of shape about this election are the ones who are too personally invested in the idea of the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Patriots who want America to be great are disappointed, of course, but everyone else should be getting on with their lives by now.  Your freedoms are not a birthright, they can be taken away in a heartbeat, and I think we all need to be reminded of that sometimes.  Thank you, Mr. Trump, for reminding us how fragile America really was.

I have been saying for at least ten years -- since watching us devolve into a fear-based, knee-jerk nation post-9/11 -- that by the end of the 21st century, America will no longer be a superpower. I knew, or intuited, that we were sowing the seeds of our own destruction. I just didn't expect it to happen this quickly.

[KBecks]

Conservatives were saying the exact same things when Obama was elected.  If there is truth to it, perhaps it is that the debt is out of control, caused by both parties.  But is is true?  Will the US lose its status?  Conservatives were saying that liberals and Obama wanted the US to lose its power to be more equal with the rest of the world.   It is interesting how the story flops between both sides.

[Glenstache]

Conservatives were saying the exact same things when Obama was elected.  If there is truth to it, perhaps it is that the debt is out of control, caused by both parties.  But is is true?  Will the US lose its status?  Conservatives were saying that liberals and Obama wanted the US to lose its power to be more equal with the rest of the world.   It is interesting how the story flops between both sides.

I'd say that's a false equivalence, and is far beyond just debt policy (which I suggest we avoid discussing here, interesting/fun as it is to discuss :-| )

Viewed from the outside, prior to inauguration the world (well, Sweden) was optimistic about Obama and granted him a nobel prize. The general take from other world leaders for Trump thus far has been to discredit what he says and not take what he says seriously, or to be insulted and increase international tensions.

Internal to the US, the things people were worried about with Obama were trumped (pun not intended) up things like he was "going to take your guns".  The distress over Trump has been exactly the things he was saying, and which many during the campaign wrote off as not believing what he said during the campaign.

[SingleMomDebt]

Hitler said he will make "Germany Great Again". Trump is saying he will make "America Great Again". No wonder I worry. There are parallels. And anti-semitism leaders being hired.

(Sorry, my post may be off topic but I just realized the parallel in speech. And him being pro-Russia. I had to get this thought off my chest). I HOPE i am wrong about all my feelings president-elect and his cabinet.

Btw, he just hired a fossil-fuel ally into EPA position.

I have never been scared about living in the US til now. And the condition of our planet... Call me sensitive, but feelings are feelings. And right now they suck. Its not about who one voted for, but the president's capability to lead a nation united. I am not seeing it.

[RangerOne]

There was an interesting interview on NPR this morning with a Harvard professor on the valid and less valid comparisons of Trumps rise to power versus Hitlers. Some of the more pertinent points:

- The demagoguery is very similar (Only I can fix this or that), people looking to one strong man to fix all their problems. Some of this stuff applied to Obama to even though clearly white people weren't afraid of being deported or put in a camp.
- Rising to prominence in the vacuum of a dying or weakening conservative party

Some of the differences:
- Germany was a much younger democracy having only recently formed in the late 1800's and thus was more fragile, it was reeling off a crushing world war and depression, those factors combined to allow for a totalitarian right wing movement.

- There are disenfranchised people in the US and areas of poor economic strength, but we are much older and more stable democracy. We aren't greatly suffering from  recent war and we have had a relative economic boom for nearly a decade.

- Trump's rise to power in the wake a crumbling or weakening Republican party is more of a populist movement than a totalitarian movement.

- Both types of movements can generate similar demagoguery and misdirected anger. However one isn't likely to result and a complete destruction of our democracy though it may mark the end of the Republican party in its current form.

[Glenstache]

There was an interesting interview on NPR this morning with a Harvard professor on the valid and less valid comparisons of Trumps rise to power versus Hitlers. Some of the more pertinent points:

- The demagoguery is very similar (Only I can fix this or that), people looking to one strong man to fix all their problems. Some of this stuff applied to Obama to even though clearly white people weren't afraid of being deported or put in a camp.
- Rising to prominence in the vacuum of a dying or weakening conservative party

Some of the differences:
- Germany was a much younger democracy having only recently formed in the late 1800's and thus was more fragile, it was reeling off a crushing world war and depression, those factors combined to allow for a totalitarian right wing movement.

- There are disenfranchised people in the US and areas of poor economic strength, but we are much older and more stable democracy. We aren't greatly suffering from  recent war and we have had a relative economic boom for nearly a decade.

- Trump's rise to power in the wake a crumbling or weakening Republican party is more of a populist movement than a totalitarian movement.

- Both types of movements can generate similar demagoguery and misdirected anger. However one isn't likely to result and a complete destruction of our democracy though it may mark the end of the Republican party in its current form.

A better comparison is likely to the trajectory of Turkey's Erdogan.

[RangerOne]

There was an interesting interview on NPR this morning with a Harvard professor on the valid and less valid comparisons of Trumps rise to power versus Hitlers. Some of the more pertinent points:

- The demagoguery is very similar (Only I can fix this or that), people looking to one strong man to fix all their problems. Some of this stuff applied to Obama to even though clearly white people weren't afraid of being deported or put in a camp.
- Rising to prominence in the vacuum of a dying or weakening conservative party

Some of the differences:
- Germany was a much younger democracy having only recently formed in the late 1800's and thus was more fragile, it was reeling off a crushing world war and depression, those factors combined to allow for a totalitarian right wing movement.

- There are disenfranchised people in the US and areas of poor economic strength, but we are much older and more stable democracy. We aren't greatly suffering from  recent war and we have had a relative economic boom for nearly a decade.

- Trump's rise to power in the wake a crumbling or weakening Republican party is more of a populist movement than a totalitarian movement.

- Both types of movements can generate similar demagoguery and misdirected anger. However one isn't likely to result and a complete destruction of our democracy though it may mark the end of the Republican party in its current form.

A better comparison is likely to the trajectory of Turkey's Erdogan.

In the current climate many countries in the west may be seeing similar fallout. France could end up with their extreme right populist in the wake of their terrorist attacks.

Merkle isn't terribly popular in Germany over the refugee issue.

All these countries are ripe for populist right wing movements in a negative response to the downsides of globalization, Islamic terrorists, and Syrian refugee surge.

And interesting thought is how much of this shit would not be happening if, we hadn't invade Iraq to create Isis and hadn't added rebels in Syria to lead to the current scale of that conflict.

Terrorism and Muslim immigration seem to be a massive reason for much of the political upheaval and blow back.

[Glenstache]

There was an interesting interview on NPR this morning with a Harvard professor on the valid and less valid comparisons of Trumps rise to power versus Hitlers. Some of the more pertinent points:

- The demagoguery is very similar (Only I can fix this or that), people looking to one strong man to fix all their problems. Some of this stuff applied to Obama to even though clearly white people weren't afraid of being deported or put in a camp.
- Rising to prominence in the vacuum of a dying or weakening conservative party

Some of the differences:
- Germany was a much younger democracy having only recently formed in the late 1800's and thus was more fragile, it was reeling off a crushing world war and depression, those factors combined to allow for a totalitarian right wing movement.

- There are disenfranchised people in the US and areas of poor economic strength, but we are much older and more stable democracy. We aren't greatly suffering from  recent war and we have had a relative economic boom for nearly a decade.

- Trump's rise to power in the wake a crumbling or weakening Republican party is more of a populist movement than a totalitarian movement.

- Both types of movements can generate similar demagoguery and misdirected anger. However one isn't likely to result and a complete destruction of our democracy though it may mark the end of the Republican party in its current form.

A better comparison is likely to the trajectory of Turkey's Erdogan.

In the current climate many countries in the west may be seeing similar fallout. France could end up with their extreme right populist in the wake of their terrorist attacks.

Merkle isn't terribly popular in Germany over the refugee issue.

All these countries are ripe for populist right wing movements in a negative response to the downsides of globalization, Islamic terrorists, and Syrian refugee surge.

And interesting thought is how much of this shit would not be happening if, we hadn't invade Iraq to create Isis and hadn't added rebels in Syria to lead to the current scale of that conflict.

Terrorism and Muslim immigration seem to be a massive reason for much of the political upheaval and blow back.

This would be an interesting topic on its own: role of geopolitical decisions in the western world's rise in right-wing populist movements.

I'll also add the impacts of austerity following the 2008 crash to that discussion and how it plays in.

Italy's recent PM resignation also gets added to the rightward indicators.

But, my comparison on Erdogan has been his gradual erosion of journalism, increase in militarization within the country, use of propaganda, and general political suppression. While it is not at all guaranteed that Trump would follow that trajectory, that would be the most feasible path if he did.

[sol]

And interesting thought is how much of this shit would not be happening if, we hadn't invade Iraq to create Isis and hadn't added rebels in Syria to lead to the current scale of that conflict.

This is exactly what Osama bin laden wanted to happen.  He wrote often about his desire to create an ideological war with the west as a means of facilitating the demise of America, and we have played right into his hands at every step of the way.

In that respect, the previous posters mentioning 9/11 as the turning point may be on to something.  Call it a slow fuse on the bomb he set to repeat our own history.

On the bright side, history also suggests we will win WW3, and then American manufacturing jobs will flood back to America as the rest of the bombed out planet slowly rebuilds for three decades.  Maybe THAT was Trump's plan for bringing those jobs back, just give bin laden the world war he wanted and hope we survive the mushroom clouds more intact than anywhere else.

[Kris]

And interesting thought is how much of this shit would not be happening if, we hadn't invade Iraq to create Isis and hadn't added rebels in Syria to lead to the current scale of that conflict.

This is exactly what Osama bin laden wanted to happen.  He wrote often about his desire to create an ideological war with the west as a means of facilitating the demise of America, and we have played right into his hands at every step of the way.

In that respect, the previous posters mentioning 9/11 as the turning point may be on to something.  Call it a slow fuse on the bomb he set to repeat our own history.

On the bright side, history also suggests we will win WW3, and then American manufacturing jobs will flood back to America as the rest of the bombed out planet slowly rebuilds for three decades.  Maybe THAT was Trump's plan for bringing those jobs back, just give bin laden the world war he wanted and hope we survive the mushroom clouds more intact than anywhere else.

Exactly. The last fifteen years have been like watching a slow motion train wreck in this regard.

[RangerOne]

And interesting thought is how much of this shit would not be happening if, we hadn't invade Iraq to create Isis and hadn't added rebels in Syria to lead to the current scale of that conflict.

This is exactly what Osama bin laden wanted to happen.  He wrote often about his desire to create an ideological war with the west as a means of facilitating the demise of America, and we have played right into his hands at every step of the way.

In that respect, the previous posters mentioning 9/11 as the turning point may be on to something.  Call it a slow fuse on the bomb he set to repeat our own history.

On the bright side, history also suggests we will win WW3, and then American manufacturing jobs will flood back to America as the rest of the bombed out planet slowly rebuilds for three decades.  Maybe THAT was Trump's plan for bringing those jobs back, just give bin laden the world war he wanted and hope we survive the mushroom clouds more intact than anywhere else.

Exactly. The last fifteen years have been like watching a slow motion train wreck in this regard.

Obviously reacting to Muslims with hate and fear is what these terrorist groups want. It is why they are happy to claim any mass killing as driven by their cause. They want more open war. They want fear and oppression in the western world.

I agree that if Osama Bin Laden were alive he would be celebrating all of the chaos Isis has they have helped bring to the western nations.

[GuitarStv]

And interesting thought is how much of this shit would not be happening if, we hadn't invade Iraq to create Isis and hadn't added rebels in Syria to lead to the current scale of that conflict.

This is exactly what Osama bin laden wanted to happen.  He wrote often about his desire to create an ideological war with the west as a means of facilitating the demise of America, and we have played right into his hands at every step of the way.

In that respect, the previous posters mentioning 9/11 as the turning point may be on to something.  Call it a slow fuse on the bomb he set to repeat our own history.

On the bright side, history also suggests we will win WW3, and then American manufacturing jobs will flood back to America as the rest of the bombed out planet slowly rebuilds for three decades.  Maybe THAT was Trump's plan for bringing those jobs back, just give bin laden the world war he wanted and hope we survive the mushroom clouds more intact than anywhere else.

Exactly. The last fifteen years have been like watching a slow motion train wreck in this regard.

Obviously reacting to Muslims with hate and fear is what these terrorist groups want. It is why they are happy to claim any mass killing as driven by their cause. They want more open war. They want fear and oppression in the western world.

I agree that if Osama Bin Laden were alive he would be celebrating all of the chaos Isis has they have helped bring to the western nations.

ISIS is a symptom of a problem, but not the root.

What nation put ISIS in power by deposing of the leader of Iraq, destabilizing the area, and then running away with the job half finished?  The story of ISIS is really just a cautionary tale about American foreign policy, sadly one that seems to be falling on deaf ears.

[golden1]

I'm mostly serene about it by now.  America gets what America deserves, and right now that appears to be the destruction of our foundational principles and looting of the public coffers by an idiot con man.  So be it.  No empire lasts forever, maybe our turn is drawing to a close.

The world is a big place full of big hearted people.  If you can accept that America won't be the shining beacon of freedom and equality it once tried to be, and is just another banana republic rife with nepotism and graft and oppression of the less fortunate, then you can either ride the gravy train (if you are rich and white) or find a home that more closely aligns with your personal values (no matter who you are).  The only people who are bent out of shape about this election are the ones who are too personally invested in the idea of the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Patriots who want America to be great are disappointed, of course, but everyone else should be getting on with their lives by now.  Your freedoms are not a birthright, they can be taken away in a heartbeat, and I think we all need to be reminded of that sometimes.  Thank you, Mr. Trump, for reminding us how fragile America really was.

I vacillate between feeling like this, and then still being very saddened and worried.  My biggest worry is that unlike other periods of political instability in history, we now have the ability to suddenly cause mass extinction on this planet via nuclear weapons.  Increased nationalism is on the rise, partly because people have forgotten one of the most important reasons for globalization - world peace.  The state of our aging nuclear arsenal is concerning, and as governments become more isolated from each other, it creates vulnerabilities for someone to exploit already widening holes on nuclear security.  At the risk of massive hyperbole, I honestly think it is only a matter of time before a nuke goes off in a major urban area.   

[Metric Mouse]

ISIS is a symptom of a problem, but not the root.

What nation put ISIS in power by deposing of the leader of Iraq, destabilizing the area, and then running away with the job half finished?  The story of ISIS is really just a cautionary tale about American foreign policy, sadly one that seems to be falling on deaf ears.

America has a pretty terrible track record in this regard, especially in the post-WWII area.

[wenchsenior]

I'm mostly serene about it by now.  America gets what America deserves, and right now that appears to be the destruction of our foundational principles and looting of the public coffers by an idiot con man.  So be it.  No empire lasts forever, maybe our turn is drawing to a close.

The world is a big place full of big hearted people.  If you can accept that America won't be the shining beacon of freedom and equality it once tried to be, and is just another banana republic rife with nepotism and graft and oppression of the less fortunate, then you can either ride the gravy train (if you are rich and white) or find a home that more closely aligns with your personal values (no matter who you are).  The only people who are bent out of shape about this election are the ones who are too personally invested in the idea of the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Patriots who want America to be great are disappointed, of course, but everyone else should be getting on with their lives by now.  Your freedoms are not a birthright, they can be taken away in a heartbeat, and I think we all need to be reminded of that sometimes.  Thank you, Mr. Trump, for reminding us how fragile America really was.

I vacillate between feeling like this, and then still being very saddened and worried.  My biggest worry is that unlike other periods of political instability in history, we now have the ability to suddenly cause mass extinction on this planet via nuclear weapons.  Increased nationalism is on the rise, partly because people have forgotten one of the most important reasons for globalization - world peace.  The state of our aging nuclear arsenal is concerning, and as governments become more isolated from each other, it creates vulnerabilities for someone to exploit already widening holes on nuclear security.  At the risk of massive hyperbole, I honestly think it is only a matter of time before a nuke goes off in a major urban area.  

That's not hyperbole. I think a 'suitcase' type nuke or dirty bomb is almost inevitable at some point, if not a standard bombing. Something that makes me crazy is how every time anyone in the media (or being quoted by the media) brushes up against this concept, they always say something like the following:  "If, god forbid, a dirty bomb were to ever go off in New York..." or "If, god forbid, terrorists were ever to get hold of a suitcase nuke..." and then rhetorically dash past the topic in about 10 seconds, utterly failing to actually engage with the idea.

But Americans NEED to expect this to happen, and figure out how we are going to deal with it practically and with some level of calm, instead of mindless hysteria (again) like after 9/11. Because eventually it IS most likely going to happen and all the 'god forbids' in the world won't be helpful. At all.

[Metric Mouse]

That's not hyperbole. I think a 'suitcase' type nuke or dirty bomb is almost inevitable at some point, if not a standard bombing. Something that makes me crazy is how every time anyone in the media (or being quoted by the media) brushes up against this concept, they always say something like the following:  "If, god forbid, a dirty bomb were to ever go off in New York..." or "If, god forbid, terrorists were ever to get hold of a suitcase nuke..." and then rhetorically dash past the topic in about 10 seconds, utterly failing to actually engage with the idea.

But Americans NEED to expect this to happen, and figure out how we are going to deal with it practically and with some level of calm, instead of mindless hysteria (again) like after 9/11. Because eventually it IS most likely going to happen and all the 'god forbids' in the world won't be helpful. At all.

Do you have suggestions or examples of what you mean by this? I would imagine this would play out like another 9/11 - after the clean up and initial freak out, life in America would continue on for the majority of Americans. Ships might get searched a little tighter or the boarder security ramped up, depending on how the device got into the states, and no doubt nuclear policy would change around the world, but day-to day life in America wouldn't suddenly decay.  It's not as if a fission weapon has never been detonated in a major population center before.

[wenchsenior]

That's not hyperbole. I think a 'suitcase' type nuke or dirty bomb is almost inevitable at some point, if not a standard bombing. Something that makes me crazy is how every time anyone in the media (or being quoted by the media) brushes up against this concept, they always say something like the following:  "If, god forbid, a dirty bomb were to ever go off in New York..." or "If, god forbid, terrorists were ever to get hold of a suitcase nuke..." and then rhetorically dash past the topic in about 10 seconds, utterly failing to actually engage with the idea.

But Americans NEED to expect this to happen, and figure out how we are going to deal with it practically and with some level of calm, instead of mindless hysteria (again) like after 9/11. Because eventually it IS most likely going to happen and all the 'god forbids' in the world won't be helpful. At all.

Do you have suggestions or examples of what you mean by this? I would imagine this would play out like another 9/11 - after the clean up and initial freak out, life in America would continue on for the majority of Americans. Ships might get searched a little tighter or the boarder security ramped up, depending on how the device got into the states, and no doubt nuclear policy would change around the world, but day-to day life in America wouldn't suddenly decay.  It's not as if a fission weapon has never been detonated in a major population center before.

But look how we overreacted in terms of civil liberty policies post 911. A lot of Americans reacted as if they could not believe it could have happened here, as if they had never even considered the idea before (ironically, just a few weeks before the attack, DH and I were commenting on how strange it was that major terrorist attack on American soil hadn't happened in so long). In the blink of an eye we had a department of homeland security, civil liberty infringement, and 2 new wars with accompanying massive costs (one based on false pretenses).

If a nuke goes off here and we haven't had calm, regular, and rational public discussion about what kinds of policies would and would not be productive in response, then who knows what kind of craziness might ensue (esp with Trump and some of his hard line anti Muslim cabinet picks at the helm).  As it is, politicians just drone on and on and on and on about 'keeping us safe' and 'preventing attacks' and never discuss how we should respond when one inevitably happens.

[GuitarStv]

That's not hyperbole. I think a 'suitcase' type nuke or dirty bomb is almost inevitable at some point, if not a standard bombing. Something that makes me crazy is how every time anyone in the media (or being quoted by the media) brushes up against this concept, they always say something like the following:  "If, god forbid, a dirty bomb were to ever go off in New York..." or "If, god forbid, terrorists were ever to get hold of a suitcase nuke..." and then rhetorically dash past the topic in about 10 seconds, utterly failing to actually engage with the idea.

But Americans NEED to expect this to happen, and figure out how we are going to deal with it practically and with some level of calm, instead of mindless hysteria (again) like after 9/11. Because eventually it IS most likely going to happen and all the 'god forbids' in the world won't be helpful. At all.

Do you have suggestions or examples of what you mean by this? I would imagine this would play out like another 9/11 - after the clean up and initial freak out, life in America would continue on for the majority of Americans. Ships might get searched a little tighter or the boarder security ramped up, depending on how the device got into the states, and no doubt nuclear policy would change around the world, but day-to day life in America wouldn't suddenly decay.  It's not as if a fission weapon has never been detonated in a major population center before.

Just like after 9/11.  Okaaaaay  . . . 

- There's an immediate knee-jerk invasion of a random country that had nothing to do with the attack?

- America throws legality and due process out the window and starts abducting/torturing innocent civilians from around the world.

- Government sponsored American led terror attacks begin (drone strikes in civilian areas) in other countries.

- The acceptance of legislation like the Patriot Act to give up freedom (warrantlesss wiretaps, the FBI can search your telephone/financial records/email without a court order, allowing law enforcement to shop around across the country for a sympathetic judge when getting a warrant, allowing indefinite detention based upon secret evidence, etc.)


The US completely lost it's shit after 9/11.  US citizens and the rest of the world are still paying for the far reaching effects that this behavior caused.  In the grand scheme of things, 9/11 was a pretty small thing.  A nuke going off in New York would be wildly more devastating.  It's not hard to imagine an even worse overreaction.

[wenchsenior]

Metric Mouse,  how old are you? I only ask because if one were a child when 9/11 occurred, one likely wouldn't have much perspective on the blatant and subtle ways it affected America afterward. 

[Kris]

Metric Mouse,  how old are you? I only ask because if one were a child when 9/11 occurred, one likely wouldn't have much perspective on the blatant and subtle ways it affected America afterward.

That's my experience, too. My stepdaughter, who is 24, is very, very smart, but she just doesn't have the perspective of someone who was a functioning adult pre-9/11.

[Metric Mouse]

Metric Mouse,  how old are you? I only ask because if one were a child when 9/11 occurred, one likely wouldn't have much perspective on the blatant and subtle ways it affected America afterward.

Late twenties. So while I have memories of breezing through airport security without considering the shoes I'm wearing, for the most part I have adapted to the overall climate of the country.

I would love to expand my perspective though, if you'd be willing to share.

[Kris]

Metric Mouse,  how old are you? I only ask because if one were a child when 9/11 occurred, one likely wouldn't have much perspective on the blatant and subtle ways it affected America afterward.

Late twenties. So while I have memories of breezing through airport security without considering the shoes I'm wearing, for the most part I have adapted to the overall climate of the country.

I would love to expand my perspective though, if you'd be willing to share.

Oh, my God. It is SO different. So, so different in so many ways that it's almost overwhelming to even think about how to comment on this.

Late twentieth-century America and early twenty-first century America feel like almost completely different countries to me.

I'm going to sit on this for a bit, since I actually am working right now (though taking a little break). I imagine others will comment, though, and I'll add my .02 when I can.

[golden1]

Do you have suggestions or examples of what you mean by this? I would imagine this would play out like another 9/11 - after the clean up and initial freak out, life in America would continue on for the majority of Americans. Ships might get searched a little tighter or the boarder security ramped up, depending on how the device got into the states, and no doubt nuclear policy would change around the world, but day-to day life in America wouldn't suddenly decay.  It's not as if a fission weapon has never been detonated in a major population center before.

Yes, it's hard to grasp how things changed after 9/11 if you didn't really experience it.

I actually have been thinking long and hard about that day lately, because I remember it vividly, and certain events happened that resonate with what is going on today.  I was at work like most people on a Tuesday.  Being 2001, there was only one guy who had a high speed internet connection.  I passed by and saw him and few other people staring at the computer.  He said "A plane just hit the World Trade Center".  Everyone just assumed it was an accident until the second plane hit.  The rest of the day was a panicked blur. 

The other thing that sticks with me was a guy sitting at the desk near mine who said, in the midst of all this happening, "We need to shut all our borders down, NOW".  I remember arguing with him that this was distinctly un american and an over reaction.  A bunch of people stood up for him, but it always amazed me how fast people are willing to limit their own rights and the rights of others when they are afraid. 

Something altered in the American psyche that day that never quite left us.  It lead to the Iraq war, which was basically a use of that crisis to propel us to a war based on made up intelligence.  It broke our innocence and sense of untouchability. 

I agree that day to day life didn't cease overnight obviously, but the effects are subtle and ongoing. 

[sol]

If a nuke goes off here and we haven't had calm, regular, and rational public discussion about what kinds of policies would and would not be productive in response, then who knows what kind of craziness might ensue

They are deliberately not public, but I assure you that the American government does have calm, regular, and rational discussions of these threats, how they can be tracked and prevented, their exact consequences (political, economic, environmental, infrastructure), how those consequences can be mitigated or overcome, and what each of those potential responses would cost vs what benefits they might provide.  It's not like you're the first person to worry about this.  We pay lots of very smart people to worry about this.

But there is no benefit to having that discussion in public.  First, it upsets regular citizens who would much rather be worrying about their favorite zombie/dragon tv show.  More importantly, it telegraph our vulnerabilities to people who might exploit them.  Should we just put up a big sign with the top ten ways a terrorist can destroy America?

Nukes are mostly a psychological weapon.  You can level a city with conventional weapons too, but nukes are scarier because then you don't need an air force to do it.  But on the scale of major terrorist vulnerabilities, I honestly don't think nukes rate very highly.  9/11 cost a few thousand dollars in total, for commercial airfare and some box cutters, and it reshaped the global political landscape.  There are a hundred other ways to finesse our carefully balanced civilization into complete anarchy, for pocket change, that are more worrisome than nuclear weapons.  Those are the discussions that I feel aren't getting the attention they deserve, mostly because they require specialized knowledge that isn't common among the agencies tracking these threats.

[Glenstache]

If a nuke goes off here and we haven't had calm, regular, and rational public discussion about what kinds of policies would and would not be productive in response, then who knows what kind of craziness might ensue

They are deliberately not public, but I assure you that the American government does have calm, regular, and rational discussions of these threats, how they can be tracked and prevented, their exact consequences (political, economic, environmental, infrastructure), how those consequences can be mitigated or overcome, and what each of those potential responses would cost vs what benefits they might provide.  It's not like you're the first person to worry about this.  We pay lots of very smart people to worry about this.

But there is no benefit to having that discussion in public.  First, it upsets regular citizens who would much rather be worrying about their favorite zombie/dragon tv show.  More importantly, it telegraph our vulnerabilities to people who might exploit them.  Should we just put up a big sign with the top ten ways a terrorist can destroy America?

Nukes are mostly a psychological weapon.  You can level a city with conventional weapons too, but nukes are scarier because then you don't need an air force to do it.  But on the scale of major terrorist vulnerabilities, I honestly don't think nukes rate very highly.  9/11 cost a few thousand dollars in total, for commercial airfare and some box cutters, and it reshaped the global political landscape.  There are a hundred other ways to finesse our carefully balanced civilization into complete anarchy, for pocket change, that are more worrisome than nuclear weapons.  Those are the discussions that I feel aren't getting the attention they deserve, mostly because they require specialized knowledge that isn't common among the agencies tracking these threats.

Like fake news, for example?