And America Continues to Show it's True Colors. . .

[Old Thunder]

I thought Hillary had this locked-up, so to speak, but woah! I was so wrong.

While I supported Trump, subconsciously I think I wrote it off already that Hillary was going to win, so when I stayed up late and watched the election progress I was rather surprised, lol.

 

[dwayne1115]

While I supported Trump, subconsciously I think I wrote it off already that Hillary was going to win, so when I stayed up late and watched the election progress I was rather surprised, lol.

I think a lot of people where, and I think that's part of the problems.

 

[jvcarroll]

I don't have any problem with you Jamie. Your points are well reasoned and based on your real life experiences. They are refreshing to read rather than just the political talking points fed to us by various websites. I wish more would take the time to think critically about the issues rather than believe everything they read. Rarely are policies black and white. There are many gray areas in political policy. They can't be boiled down to a sentence or two of talking points.



I do agree with you here. There do seem to be a lot of white supremacists that love Trump. But you don't make it a point to label your friends or other Trump supporters racists because of it. And I agree. I wish that Trump would put a squash to it but I'm not sure it would do any good anyway. Those types of people are irrational and I'm not sure a message from Trump would change any of their behavior. But I also felt that President Obama should have spoken up more against the targeting of police and the violent protests. Not the protests, but the violent ones that resulted in riots. I'm not sure those people would have listened to President Obama either though. I think in both cases they are afraid of upsetting their base and maybe recognized that it wouldn't have made a difference. As far as his policies benefiting anyone who's not white, male or wealthy I have a different perspective. I guess time will tell. But I'm willing to give him more than 3 weeks before I make any judgements. But I'm usually optimistic by nature and tend to see the good in people rather than the bad. Maybe I'm just being blind to reality. Wouldn't be the first time. Take for instance his position on trade. It is very much in-line with Bernie Sanders. I think it will benefit the middle class worker but it is a fine line to walk. Does he have the skill to do it? We'll see.



I'm not going to deny that sexism exists but I don't think it played a significant role in Hillary's loss. She just ran a terrible campaign and took many things for granted. I can't tell you how many times I heard from female friends or co-workers that said "I wish she would give me something other than vote for me because I'm a woman." As far as things not sticking to Teflon Bill and sticking to her. Totally different personalities. He's very likable and can turn on the charm. She's not very likeable and when she does try turning on the charm it comes across as very forced. I have a friend that is secret service. He's had the privilege to guard President Bush, the elder. Word among the agency was that Hillary was not a likeable person, at all. It was seen as a punishment to be assigned to her.



Most of what you posted I agreed with. Particularly when it comes to Trumps personality and make-up. We probably disagree on some of his policies. Agree on some as well. I'm not as critical of his cabinet as you are. While it is stocked with former Goldman Sachs executives I don't necessarily see that as a negative. First, I think any president is going to surround himself with people he has worked with and trusts. 2nd, I don't necessarily think that having wealthy people in the cabinet is a bad thing. I think you have to evaluate each pick on their merits, regardless of whether they were Goldman Sachs employees or not. Being a successful person isn't a bad thing.



What worries me most about Trump's presidency, and it's not necessarily a criticism of him but where the country is headed in general, is the fact that the country seems to be moving farther and farther apart. I had hoped that a message would have been taken by both Democrats and Republican alike from this election. The people are fed up with the same ol' political B.S. from Washington. They just want to see things get done. People, regardless of race, sex, religion, origin, etc. basically all have the same wants and desires. A comfortable life with little worries. But it doesn't seem like the politicians have gotten the message. Instead, it seems to have pushed both sides further apart. What we really needed was a quality candidate that was a uniter. But we had two terrible flawed candidates.

I appreciate your points. Another disclaimer, just to make sure, my passion is still about these points. Not in the disagreement. I truly value this dialog.

The things I disagree with in particular are either giving Trump more of a chance, when I already think it's evident he's shown him candidacy for what it is, and the idea that sexism didn't make a big difference in the campaign.

I'm going to tackle the sexism first an in a very unique and unexpected way. Sexism is not a partisan issue. Not at all. In fact, it even played a part on the progressive side. Once the writing was on the wall that Hillary was going to be the nominee, Senator Elizabeth Warren finally endorsed Secretary Clinton. Warren has been a progressive champion for years. She's put her career on the line countless times, even when it was unpopular to do so. But many Sanders supporters threw her under the bus as a turncoat to progressive ideals after she didn't line up behind Bernie. Once Bernie lined up behind Clinton, they didn't give him any of that flack. Many ignored him, but the way that many democrats went after Warren was ruthless and exposed a lack of perspective, decency and history of her political life. By the way, she started off as a republican and is highly educated in corporate law. She knows where the money is and where the money's going. She's also a self-made person. She didn't start out with much and worked her butt off to get where she is. One might not like her politics, but she's a dignified and intelligent person who should never be thrown under the bus as was done by too many progressives (younger folk who were obviously new to politics this cycle). That's my greatest example of sexism and how it impacted the election. I also find it an oversight to simply say that Bill Clinton's charisma is why the scandals didn't stick to him as much as to her, particularly when it was many of his own scandals that would stick to her. It's much harder for a woman to be charismatic. They can't be too harsh or too soft, but men generally have more leeway to behave as they want without nearly the amount of scrutiny. That's just fact. Sexism, unfortunately, plays a part in every aspect of our lives.

I take exception to the idea that passivity and giving him the benefit of the doubt as a good way for progressives to react to the Trump presidency. The fact that he's mainly put rich, white people in cabinet positions, most of whom are either antithetical to those particular jobs and/or are highly unqualified for them. Appointing an oil CEO as Secretary of State is an enormous conflict of interest. Appointing someone who's never had any involvement with student loans or public schools - and actually has expressed an interest in dismantling public school education - is dangerous. Appointing a person to head the Department of Energy, who not only wanted to dismantle it, but didn't even know what that department was until getting the job - one that's in charge or our nuclear arsenal - is absolute insanity. I could go on, but none of this inspires confidence in me or any other progressives. These aren't mere differences of political opinion or personality clashes, these are great conflicts of interest. The choices are not reasonable.

Maya Angelou once wisely said, "When someone shows you who they really are, believe them the first time." There's no ambiguity about Trump. Not really. I know a lot of folk overlook his antics and point to his ideas, but those antics are who he really is and he doesn't have ideas as much as he has self-serving positions on things that serve wealthy special interests more than the working man. Those were the claims many folk made about Clinton, but they're much more prevalent in Trump's presidency. There will come a time with a growing number of republicans will eventually have to turn on him because he's going to make the party look bad, particularly in an election year when a lot of congressmen and women are up for reelection. We'll see. I just look at this as a slow moving train headed toward chaos.

 

[fuzzygobo]

Is it me, or does it seem calling someone a racist is becoming the new go-to when someone doesn't agree with them? It's becoming too easy to brand someone a racist when everybody shows it to one degree or another.

I've been fortunate over the last 20+ years to have worked at half a dozen jobs with every ethnic group under the sun (sometimes with me being the only white male among them. Token White Guy.). Black, Hispanic, Indian, Filipino, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic, straight, gay, you name it, I've worked with them.

But just as hate and racism has to be learned and cultivated, so does tolerance.
It's very easy to put up walls just because somebody doesn't look like you, talk like you, think like you, worship like you, etc. But it takes effort to break the walls down and keep them down.

And not everybody wants to keep the walls down. I've seen plenty of instances of people of different races preferring to stay only with their own kind, and never attempt at breaking out of their zone. So, one can argue, anyone of any color can be as racist as the next guy. Not just whites.

One job was a dead-end disappointment. About 500 workers. Five white people, ten blacks, the rest Hispanic. The white people didn't like the black people, the black people didn't like the white people, the black and white people didn't like the Hispanic people, and the Hispanic people didn't like each other. The Mexicans didn't like the Puerto Ricans, the Puerto Ricans didn't like the Dominicans, the Dominicans didn't like the Colombians, and round and round it goes. The prevailing attitude was "We take care of our own, and screw everybody else". Fortunately a handful of us banded together and tried to bring some unity. Sometimes we succeeded, sometimes we didn't.

Racism is not going away any time soon. And I deplore that, not approve of it. in spite being 2017, in spite having had a Black president, we're still barely beyond Square One in race relations. As long as fear and ignorance exist in people, racism can always find a breeding ground. Regardless of skin color. Racism in the country cannot be pinned solely on Trump any more than it can be pinned on Obama.

I'm old enough to be the father of just about everybody here. I've been hoping since before most of you were born to see some ground being gained. Sometimes we gain a few yards, then lose them. It would be nice to see some tangible sign in my lifetime, even a small one. But there's still so far to go.
In spite of that, I still remain hopeful.

 

[dwayne1115]

I found that someone wrote "I hate whites' in the bathroom at work. Right next to a Trump Rules sgin. So go figure.

 

[MikaelaMuppet]

I found that someone wrote "I hate whites' in the bathroom at work. Right next to a Trump Rules sgin. So go figure.

That's racist.

 

[snichols1973]

This song, even though it was first performed in the late 1950's and early 1960's, still has some relevance in its caustic wit, even though some of these conflicts may have long since sudsided:

On the lighter side, the Muppets' version of "Why Can't We Be Friends" really drives home the "war is heck" sentiment as even Crazy Harry joins in the cease-fire:

 

[CensoredAlso]

Well said.

I'm not sure how much I buy into this whole "Trump scammed you" thing. He's not a smart guy, it's pretty obvious. There's no way he looked at our broken system and knew the right ways to become in charge of it. He's not clever enough.

Maybe he didn't have to be all that clever.

Frankly, what I'm hearing is that his group at the White House is currently in chaos. He wasn't qualified for this position, didn't do the research, and is surrounding himself with equally clueless people. I mean that Stephen Miller guy, what was he smoking the other day??? National Security Ddviser Flynn was just caught and had to resign/be fired. Kelly Ann and Spicer have no choice but to spin at all costs. I don't think this can end well, heh.

I wouldn't compare this to Hitler though, it's much closer to Nixon. Sooner or later, someone in the administration is going to get caught in a compromising position.

 

[D'Snowth]

Frankly, what I'm hearing is that his group at the White House is currently in chaos. He wasn't qualified for this position, didn't do the research, and is surrounding himself with equally clueless people.

Well, again, he had this "brilliant" idea that running the country more like a business would somehow solve all of the problems, and that clearly does not or will seem to be the case.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Well, again, he had this "brilliant" idea that running the country more like a business would somehow solve all of the problems, and that clearly does not or will seem to be the case.

Might work if he was more open to advice from people with experience. Like in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, sure his strength is that he's an outsider, but he also receives a lot of help.