Mostly just boredom lol

If it makes you feel better I can change the word "explicit" to "implicit and so thinly veiled that only the dishonest or supremely gullible would fall for it" and change nothing else. That's a pretty frivolous thing though.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 9 2021 11:58am

the notion that an alleged overstatement of trump's proximity to white supremacism would turn people off from acknowledging and opposing that connection, is nothing short of ridiculous.

that's only true for people like yourself, who have no real convictions and exclusively care about how they are perceived, rather than about the issues themselves - people who are "centrists" because they think it's the hip thing to be these days.

no serious person goes: 'hmmm... i really oppose racism and bigotry, and as such i reject trump's repeated dog whistles to white supremacists and nazis - but what REALLY bothers me are people who overstate those instances - therefore withdraw my "support" in fighting bigotry and racism.' that's absurd.

This post was edited by fender on Mar 9 2021 12:30pm

yes im very triggered by explicitly defined words like explicit. and overall am slightly bothered by both the need of the left to paint trump as a super villain rather than a buffoon bent on being liked, and the rights need to paint him as a messiah or even perpetual victim rather than an average at best POTUS who had seriously issues worthy of criticism.

if think if more of us could meet in the middle, call it like it is, and realize he was a random ass mediocre intelligence guy, thrust up as the voice of a lot of disenfranchised people, who then went on to make boilerplate legislation and ineffectual EOs, while shooting his own feet constantly, we'd be able to move on better. not today perhaps, but at this rate i dont expect him to leave the daily lexicon for 100 years.

As long as you add in that the reason he got thrust was because he was constantly pandering to the white supremacist aspects of the right more than his competitors then I'd say this is a fair comparison.

i'd frame it that he was a voice for the disenfranchised out of work victims of outsourcing and corporate greed far more than white supremacist's, by percent.

one thing lost to history here is that in the 2016 primary Trump was the only person speaking for these people, just as much as he was the only person speaking up for the KKK types.

what were Rubio, Cruz, etc doing to speak to these voters? nothing, because they sat in office while it all happened and did nothing. Kasich maybe tried with his "we did it in Ohio" rhetoric, but look at Ohio, not exactly a business mecca.

i just think we have a rosey perspective on the rise of trump, based on soundbites that have permeated. like the Mexico speech, which in itself can be framed as much as a pro-american worker speech as an anti-brown people racist speech. even tho unskilled labor doesnt really hurt middle class whites, it is a constant talking point in that avenue.

and really, what % of the voters, even just right winged voters, do "white supremicists" compromise? 5% of republican voters? less? unless we're being real loose with our definitions here. even standard racists whiteys dont apply to me like members of KKK and Neo Nazis. i think of people willing to march in the streets with a hate symbol on their chests, not people who turn their noses up at an interracial couple.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 9 2021 12:20pm

I definitely agree that he squeezed out a win in 2016 because he played the populist economic message. If you compare his "closing arguments" add in 2016 to his in 2020 its night and day. 2016 was all about overturning a corrupt system. 2020 was all evil communist and identity politics.

However, I think it's a mistake to discount his encouragement of white supremacy just because the most overt ones are a small part of the base. Their ideas are really ingrained into right wing thought as a whole in the United States, and encouraging them gives steam to making them a larger part of the base.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 9 2021 12:23pm

its for sure best to think of trump's messaging as a venn diagram, not a pie chart. whrein he can make racist, populist/economist, or both statements.

and in the same way people's reaction/support can be a venn diagram.

i just think its most accurate to say the largest percent of his supporters supported the anti-corruption proUS economy messages, and where silent to and not in support of the racist implications. the topic of this silence on racism being white privilege is relevant though.

and that said i think but cant prove that anyone but hillary and "leftist will hate this" motivations might be the biggest one of all.

Trump won the 2016 GOP primary because he was catering to anti-immigration or "racially conservative" sentiment.
He won the 2016 general election because he was catering to the economic populist themes of anti-globalization, being against free trade and outsourcing and such.

One common empirical finding of the 2016, 2018 and 2020 elections is that Trump playing to racially conservative voters did not gain him net votes; the activation effect this might have had among closet racists or rural whites was more than made up by the number of racially moderate or liberal whites he lost in the suburbs because of this rhetoric. However, what it did for him, and for the GOP in general, is a realignment to a much more efficiently distributed electoral coalition.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 9 2021 12:39pm

You talk like an imbecile.