Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

[Boomer]

https://medium.com/@discomfiting/youre- ... .v0n6e6khy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great article, thanks for sharing.

[Derived Absurdity]

No problem.

[the_dork_lord]

Two others:

https://medium.com/@discomfiting/debunk ... .etj5rict5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://medium.com/@discomfiting/stop-g ... .ienblsohh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gendo]

You people are making me terrified. That is, I'd previously been terrified of a Trump presidency (though not enough to completely go against everything I've been saying for the past 8 years and vote for a lesser evil), but I've been thinking "well Hillary will probably win anyway, so things will be more or less the same" and "Wow those conservatives who are freaking out about Hillary really need to stop being so hyperbolic"... but with what you are saying, we're just really, really screwed no matter what happens in November.

[Derived Absurdity]

That is correct.

God bless America!

Edit: okay, what dork said.

[the_dork_lord]

with what you are saying, we're just really, really screwed no matter what happens in November.

Not if we build mass movements. One of the most progressive administrations in history on environmental and racial issues was Nixon's -- not because Nixon, or anyone around him, was a progressive, but because mass movements forced him to. Even FDR ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism and balancing the budget, but millions of communists and socialists taking to the street made the ruling class shit its pants and give concessions.

It doesn't matter this year who wins the presidency, but it never has, because it's always been two candidates who work for Wall Street. What matters is what the people do.

[Cassius Clay]

There's too much bs to respond to. Y'all are gonna have to give me a few days to respond at this rate.

(Unless someone else would like to carry some of that load)

[Monk]

Setting aside that the original post is inaccurate anyway. Shitloads of LGBTQ people, black people, women, etc., aren't voting for Clinton. For instance: https://blackmattersus.com/12024-we-won ... ers-chant/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some data:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800 ... TLIGTw.png

68.2% of women are not voting for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... CpTUJA.png

48% of People of Color will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... WCYghQ.png

57% of non-heterosexual people will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... 3zsaxw.png

68% of marginalized religious folk will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... IHGBaw.png

66.6% of working class people will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

What's the source of these data? I only ask because most polling I've seen has shown much greater support for Hillary among minorities and women than these graphs suggest. CNN's recent poll, for example, found that between 70 and 80 percent of non-whites were voting for Clinton. Fox found 85% of blacks were backing Clinton (doesn't look like they broke it down by other races/ethnicities. Quinnipac (IIRC) found 65% of hispanics and 93% of blacks supported Clinton. I haven't seen much on LGBT polling, but the one I did find (Whitman), 84% were supporting Clinton. Granted, those polls you listed are from a couple weeks ago when Clinton dropped in the polls and these are from the post-DNC convention.

[Cassius Clay]

Also:

But the majority are still not. So to suggest that it's only white people who reject both is just factually incorrect, even if packaged as a joke.

Before I address anything I want to post these simple questions for the sake of clarity:

1) Between Hillary and Trump, is there a lesser evil?
2) If so, must you necessarily vote for that specific lesser evil?
3) What are the merits of voting for lesser evil?

These are 3 very distinct questions that I see keep getting irresponsibly/conveniently conflated. If I see you mofos keep conflating them, I'll just keep re-posting it.

Is there not a difference between rejecting both and thinking one is worse than the other?

[the_dork_lord]

They're from Reuters Polling.

[Dr_Liszt]

All I know is that if Trump wins because of the swing states. All the little voters are going to be "Damn man, why didn't I vote for Hills?"

So the thing is, Dork is right, mass movements are the only way you can achieve something, always have been this way. But is also my opinion that this will be even more possible under a Clinton administration rather than a Trump one. And this is coming from a person who dreads a Clinton presidency and whose Clinton regime back in the 90's helped to finish off the colonialism going on during the genocide, and whose feminist movement will likely get hit and trampled again, thanks to the rhetoric of feminism under Clinton's propaganda, I mean is not entirely true the whole world is more afraid of Trump, people here are very afraid of Clinton too, even more so than Trump. So Dork has a point, but also Castor. So...I guess my point is, take into account maybe voting out of protest is not a good idea. Protest outside of it.

[Derived Absurdity]

I do think people who don't vote and/or who argue for not voting while not attempting to affect positive political/social/economic change in other ways are sort of shitty. Doing literally nothing is not a good option.

[the_dork_lord]

But is also my opinion that this will be even more possible under a Clinton administration rather than a Trump one.

This is possible, though I don't know what the evidence of it is. Accept it for argument's sake. But history has shown that when burgeoning mass movements direct their energy to electing Democrats, the movement gets subsumed into the Democrats and dies. You could argue that the ideal situation is a mass movement and a Clinton presidency, but if you encourage people to push for a Clinton presidency, you'll kill the mass movement.

So...I guess my point is, take into account maybe voting out of protest is not a good idea.

Voting third party isn't a symbolic vote. It's a vote towards building options outside the Democrats. One of the problems with this argument is the assumption that the only effect one's vote can have is in impacting the eventual winner of the election. This is simply not true. The political atmosphere and the state of the class struggle are also influenced by how we encourage people to vote.

[Anakin McFly]

1 Aug poll results from CNN show 80% non-whites voting for Clinton (pg 20):

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/image ... ention.pdf

I've been wondering if there's an academic/mainstream divide rather than a racial one, given how for instance many of the pieces by POCs or others criticising Clinton tend to be by college-educated people and frequently use words like 'imperialist', 'capitalist', 'neoliberal' or 'colonialist', which most people don't use as part of everyday language.

Regarding the articles at Medium in particular, I take issue with how she conflates Clinton harming people - some of whom who happen to be queer - with harming people because they are queer, and uses that to claim Clinton is anti-LGBT; that argument strikes me as disingenuous, given that one could just as well claim that Clinton hates animals because some animals died during the Iraq war. There's a reason why some crimes are classified as hate crimes while others aren't, even if the same people are killed. Which I realize is small comfort to the victims and doesn't erase the larger point, but framing it that way is misleading.

[Derived Absurdity]

When did she do that?

[Anakin McFly]

The author added further commentary on one of her articles:

"How is Hillary a queer ally [for instance], an ally to my community, if she is supporting imperialist and genocidal policies against Palestinians? These policies hurt Palestinians, of which, many are within my community. Hillary is a danger to the queer community because queer Palestinian are queer. ... She is not going to fight to end the predatory and abusive credit loaning industry that preys on trans women and discriminates against trans women."

https://medium.com/@discomfiting/how-is ... .x9yk1i64a

It's a leap to go from "Hilary isn't stopping the credit loaning industry -> the industry hurts poor people -> many of those poor people are trans -> Hilary is transphobic".

[Derived Absurdity]

She didn't say that Hillary is transphobic because the credit loaning industry hurts poor people, some of whom happen to be trans. She said the credit loaning industry discriminates against trans people specifically, which Hillary isn't doing anything about. She said that in the very paragraph you quoted.

[Anakin McFly]

She said the credit loaning industry discriminates against trans people specifically

How so, though? Honest question. I googled and can't find anything about it, and I'm not familiar with the US situation. If it's a matter of them deliberately targetting trans women as a whole, then fair enough, but these things tend to be tied heavily to poverty instead. (e.g. I doubt Caitlyn Jenner has been suffering much at the hands of credit loaning companies, even slightly.)

[Derived Absurdity]

I actually can't find anything on that either. Nevertheless, that was her point, whether it's valid or not.

As for Hillary being an enemy of LGBTQ people because many of her policies and positions harm them (such as with Palestinian rights), well, I mean, even if she doesn't intentionally target them like the GOP, showing such a sociopathic disregard for their well-being demonstrates, at least to me, that she is their enemy. To be an enemy to a group of people you don't need intention to harm them, you just need to refuse to help them when you know you could and when you know they need your help.

It's like the parable with the drowning boy. Whether you push the boy in or whether you just refuse to pull him out when he's already in, does it really matter? He's still dead because of you.

[the_dork_lord]

"No, see, I don't imprison people because they're black or kill them because they're Muslim. I do it because it's profitable. See the difference? Don't you feel better now?"

[Monk]

Hillary should speak out against discrimination against trans people in the credit loan industry, but it seems like the author was trying to find one thing Hillary hasn't publicly spoken out about and use that as proof that she doesn't support trans rights.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing ... -equality/

[Anakin McFly]

I think the author was making the claim not about any specific discrimination but how trans women are disproportionately affected due to poverty (and how most industries usually mistreat trans women by default). It's the same logic she explicitly uses in the other arguments she makes, e.g. Palestinians are harmed by Clinton -> some Palestinians are LGBT -> Clinton harms LGBT people; and it fits with the worldview I usually hear from such people, where for instance they say racism is anti-feminist because many women are oppressed by racism, or ableism is homophobic because some gay people are disabled.

I get that they're trying to show how we are all interconnected and there is no us vs them, where oppression against one group hurts people from every other group and must be understood as a whole system, but I personally dislike that approach. At some point, words no longer have their commonly understood definitions, communication is hindered, and it can end up getting incoherent in its huge web of associations. It makes no distinction between direct and indirect harm: if someone falls into a lake and drowns vs if he was pushed and drowns, sure, he's still dead at the end of it, but the circumstances of that death matter and inform what we have to do to stop it happening again to someone else: build a fence, or find the murderer and bring them to justice.

[Cassius Clay]

Plus the author is simply saying that you shouldn't make absolute statements like "not voting for Clinton = privilege", which is a very reasonable position given her situation(not voting is not necessarily privilege, but is sure can be). And she even says she understands why others would vote for Clinton. So, posting that article was completely irrelevant anyway. No one made any such statements. And it's in poor taste to pit oppressions against each other in an attempt to make objections/accusations about privilege void.

And that Jeffrey Clair motherfucker from the 3rd counterpunch article is an absolute cunt. It's telling that he would take such a concise and dispassionate case for lesser evil voting so personally. Patronizing? Scolding? Dafuq?? The other guys were cool, but I still disagree. Still haven't read the 4th one though. My overall impression is that they oversimplify lesser evil voting...like you can only do one thing at a time.

[Cassius Clay]

No such thing as a protest vote:

https://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-s ... .pg0ryg2qg

[Cassius Clay]

@dork

I haven't had time to give a more in-depth response like I wanted. So, I'll just try to make some succinct points:

Trump is skillful at saying a whole lot without saying anything, and he hasn't had been in politics long enough to do the type of damage Clinton already has. So, for those reasons I'm not playing the "Clinton has already done terrible shit that Trump hasn't" game. The guy is an angry, unpredictable narcissist who shouldn't be in any positions of power. Clinton has evolved over the years and is basically a more hawkish Obama. I think it's foolish/naive/disingenuous to put too much stock in the fact that Trump the psycho hasn't done much yet(really, hasn't had the opportunity to do), when comparing how dangerous they each are.

I didn't call mass movements a "bro strategy". It's more about the timing. Aren't movements built from the bottom up(which Faust, I think, already mentioned...which has been strangely ignored)? Trying to make a impotent statement at the level of the general election strikes me as arrogant.

And you really should read Propane Jane's storify on racism and socialism...multiple times. And some of her other storifies on the white working class and racism. I don't think you quite understand the role of racism in this mess. It's strange how in all this talk, there's no mention of the black vote and the GOPs reliance on anti-black racism, and how the white working class abandoned the dems(not the other way around) and chose racism over their own well-being because they've been so effectively propagandized...why the black vote is with Hillary(and are her base), and how the black vote has had to be pragmatic because of the hateful motherfuckers on the other side, and how black people won't follow you over the edge of the cliff for a pipe dream(unless you address racism head on, confront the damn GOP, and show empathy/understanding of their necessary pragmatism) . Can't talk about "mass movements" without taking all that into consideration. Understanding the logistics of how white supremacy/anti-blackness hijacks government and social progress is key(and how that connects to other socialism, corporate power and imperialism), as well as why black people vote pragmatically. The practice of anti-blackness in the campaigning, voting and governing process is at the intersection/center/foundation of a lot of this shit, and that gets overlooked. Fix this issue, and a lot of other bullshit with fall as well(Even if it doesn't lead to the other issues being fixed, we need to realize that anti-blackness gets in the way of us being able to BEGIN to really address it. It holds so many key issues hostage, but everyone has their heads up their ass about this fact...which is a symptom of anti-blackness itself). Black people, other POcs, women, some white people and other marginalized have slowly built a coalition that can address this shit(that is the coalition that will elect Hillary). And Trump has unwittingly helped with that by polarizing racist nationalists and the marginalized even further. No need to try to build a separate movement. We don't have the time or luxury to try and build a purist movement, when there is already an imperfect, but powerful/meaningful coalition right in front of your face. It ain't time for a bullshit revolution fantasy.

To sum up, what I'm really trying to say is that America's madness is rooted in anti-blackness/white supremacy, and anti-blackness must be challenged and uprooted to even give us a chance to stop all the bullshit. If you think money/class/corporations are most central and that racism is just some side issue that will take care of itself once we deal with class, you are doing it wrong. That is backwards.

(I understood this on some level, but learning from Propane Jane made this crystal clear to me. I'm not kidding when I say that everyone must read every word she writes)

[Derived Absurdity]

Plus the author is simply saying that you shouldn't make absolute statements like "not voting for Clinton = privilege", which is a very reasonable position given her situation(not voting is not necessarily privilege, but is sure can be). And she even says she understands why others would vote for Clinton. So, posting that article was completely irrelevant anyway. No one made any such statements.

It seemed relevant to me, and "not voting for Clinton = privilege" was an extremely heavily implication I thought you and others were making. If saying/implying that white guys are incapable of differentiating between Trump and Clinton while other people are (and hence think not voting for Clinton is a reasonable position), I don't know how else to interpret that other than them/us being blinded by white male privilege.

And it's in poor taste to pit oppressions against each other in an attempt to make objections/accusations about privilege void.

I don't know what that means. Are you talking about me or her?

And that Jeffrey Clair motherfucker from the 3rd counterpunch article is an absolute cunt.

Um, disagree. You make that judgment just because he used the words patronizing and scolding? That's how he always talks, he's always insulting and dismissive to people he thinks deserves it. And Noam Chomsky doesn't deserve nearly as much respect as you seem to think he does. He (Clair) is a pretty excellent investigative reporter and political commentator and the book he co-wrote, Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs and the Press, is something I consider pretty much required reading for everyone with any interest in at all in the drug war, how it's used as a tool for predatory government agencies to prey against vulnerable people, the media, and American 20th century history in general.

But it's still the weakest of the articles; I only linked it because I thought these lines were good:

Hillary Clinton is a living refutation of the logic of lesser-evilism, since her candidacy as the most rightwing Democratic nominee since Harry “A Bomb" Truman is the inevitable consequence of decades of lesser-evil voting. This toxic political pragmatism engenders a process of natural selection in reverse, where the candidates get more-and-more retrograde because their opponents can always be painted as fractionally more odious.

[Cassius Clay]

It seemed relevant to me, and "not voting for Clinton = privilege" was an extremely heavily implication I thought you and others were making. If saying/implying that white guys are incapable of differentiating between Trump and Clinton while other people are (and hence think not voting for Clinton is a reasonable position), I don't know how else to interpret that other than them/us being blinded by white male privilege.

??? I...I...don't know how else to make this clearer. I said something like "it seems to be mainly white dudes who make the specific claim that there is no difference between Clinton and Trump". That is a very different statement than "not voting for Clinton = privilege". The former doesn't even mention or imply anything about voting.

And it's in poor taste to pit oppressions against each other in an attempt to make objections/accusations about privilege void.

I don't know what that means. Are you talking about me or her?

It's aimed at you and anyone who endorsed it as if it was an appropriate or relevant response to anything said here. If you don't understand the other issue above, then you won't understand this either, and I don't know where to begin with that.

Me: "Your position comes across as stemming from privilege and the fact that a good chunk of marginalized people(especially black people) disagree with you is a sign of that"

Y'all: "Oh yeah? Well check out this marginalized person who agrees with me - even though she's not exactly saying what I'm saying and coming from a completely different place...which is survival, not principal, just like the other marginalized people who disagree with me. So, it's not about privilege! Nothing to see here folks!"

And that Jeffrey Clair motherfucker from the 3rd counterpunch article is an absolute cunt.

Um, disagree. You make that judgment just because he used the words patronizing and scolding? That's how he always talks, he's always insulting and dismissive to people he thinks deserves it. And Noam Chomsky doesn't deserve nearly as much respect as you seem to think he does. He (Clair) is a pretty excellent investigative reporter and political commentator and the book he co-wrote, Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs and the Press, is something I consider pretty much required reading for everyone with any interest in at all in the drug war, how it's used as a tool for predatory government agencies to prey against vulnerable people, the media, and American 20th century history in general.

He's still a cunt. It's not about defending Chomsky. He doesn't even attack Chomsky. He saves most of his vitriol for the other guy, who he apparently used to work with. The whole thing came across as weirdly and unnecessarily personal.

Hillary Clinton is a living refutation of the logic of lesser-evilism, since her candidacy as the most rightwing Democratic nominee since Harry “A Bomb" Truman is the inevitable consequence of decades of lesser-evil voting. This toxic political pragmatism engenders a process of natural selection in reverse, where the candidates get more-and-more retrograde because their opponents can always be painted as fractionally more odious.

People being forced to bide their time(specifically marginalized people) and vote pragmatically is solely the fault of the insane GOP and this racist country(on both sides of the party line) that enables them. Why no mention of this Nazi party that consistently hijacks the governing process, sabotaging meaningful progress, and forcing people to make difficult concessions - in order to keep these Nazis at bay and survive? Did we forget about that part of the equation? Why the fuck are they so invisible in all this analysis?

[Gendo]

No such thing as a protest vote:

https://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-s ... .pg0ryg2qg

That whole thing just reads like "No point in trying to make gay marriage legal. The system is rigged against it; gay marriage is illegal and that's just how it is; so deal with it. Don't waste time trying to change it."

[Cassius Clay]

No such thing as a protest vote:

https://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-s ... .pg0ryg2qg

That whole thing just reads like "No point in trying to make gay marriage legal. The system is rigged against it; gay marriage is illegal and that's just how it is; so deal with it. Don't waste time trying to change it."

Incorrect. You're thinking like a sith...in absolutes.

There are times when "pragmatism" is merely a cover for maintaining the status quo, lacking imagination and preventing revolution(and I have criticized others for that on this very board), and times where pragmatism is necessary, and "revolution" is merely a cover for recklessness and ego. Discernment is key.

[Anakin McFly]

I read an article by an Asian-American guy who argued that voting for Clinton was a sign of white liberal privilege, saying he thought it was hilarious that white Democrats were suddenly acting all concerned about racism when they'd never cared all these years. He said that a Trump presidency was what was needed to dispel the notion that we live in a post-racial society, because it would make it impossible to deny the rampant racism in the US and could be what finally motivates any decent white person - even those who presently deny racism exists - to rise up in outrage and stand with their POC brethren to get things done. Whereas he thinks that Clinton winning would just feed into the sense of complacency that everything is great now and everyone is equal, and nothing would change.

Which sort of makes sense, although it depends on Trump not starting nuclear war before that, and I'm not sure the collateral damage would be worth it.

(The author was kind of a dick, though. He implied that feminism and LGBT rights were silly white people issues that no one else cared about because they had Real Problems to deal with.)

[Cassius Clay]

Best-case scenario of a Trump win is his disaster of a presidency forcing people to come together and say enough is enough(though, that is already happening in some ways). However, it would be incredibly reckless to intentionally aim for that path.

[the_dork_lord]

I read an article by an Asian-American guy who argued that voting for Clinton was a sign of white liberal privilege, saying he thought it was hilarious that white Democrats were suddenly acting all concerned about racism when they'd never cared all these years. He said that a Trump presidency was what was needed to dispel the notion that we live in a post-racial society, because it would make it impossible to deny the rampant racism in the US and could be what finally motivates any decent white person - even those who presently deny racism exists - to rise up in outrage and stand with their POC brethren to get things done. Whereas he thinks that Clinton winning would just feed into the sense of complacency that everything is great now and everyone is equal, and nothing would change.

I don't approve of this accelerationist attitude, but the Dems keep pushing lesser evilism precisely to promote this complacency. They have no intention of offering anything to the oppressed, so they tell you instead how much worse the other guy is to make you happy that they win.

[Cassius Clay]

It's true that there are elites that take advantage of lesser evilism to promote complacency, and that they exploit oppressed in their ranks that have no choice but to align themselves with them. But it's also true that the other side is pure evil. Both things can be simultaneously true. And that both sides serve the elites. But, we aren't going to solve the problem by pretending one side doesn't thrive on hate(their political power literally comes from hate and bigotry), just to push some tunnel-visioned anti-corporation agenda.

"Both sides are the same because corporations" isn't going to cut it.

[the_dork_lord]

Again, name one principle Trump subscribes to that you find abhorrent, and I'll tell you how Clinton and the Democrats have already acted on it.

Being the graveyard of social movements that promotes complacency isn't the lesser evil. In a lot of ways, it is the greater evil to hide your evil to subdue your victims into silence.

[Derived Absurdity]

I'm pretty sure he's not just talking about Trump the person, he's talking about the entire GOP and the festering mass of racism and hatred it feasts on.

[the_dork_lord]

Name something the GOP stands for and I'll tell you how the Democrats have acted on it.

[Derived Absurdity]

Hey, I mostly agree with you! Don't ask me!

[the_dork_lord]

I know. Just sayin'.

[Cassius Clay]

I've also been meaning to comment on this:

Everyone who has argued against lesser evil voting in this election has also tried to argue that Clinton isn't actually the lesser evil. This lacks focus. The thing is, you can't have it both ways. If you want to argue that lesser evil voting doesn't work, you can do so while simply acknowledging the lesser evil. To try to argue against LEV in principle but then go, "well actually Clinton isn't even necessarily the lesser evil" is to implicitly legitimize the concept of LEV.

[the_dork_lord]

Clinton isn't the lesser evil, and even if she were, it wouldn't make sense to vote for her.

There ya go.

[Cassius Clay]

Weak argumentation. If she isn't the lesser evil, then arguments against the concept of LEV are irrelevant and detracts from the strength of the former as a stand alone argument. And vice versa. Makes it look like you can't fully stand behind either

Just thought I should help.

[Cassius Clay]

To spell it out another way:

Built into the arguments against lesser evilism is the idea that it does not matter who the lesser evil is because the concept is dangerous.

To turn around and argue about who the lesser evil is implies that it matters...which undermines the former. You're welcome.

[Dr_Liszt]

But is also my opinion that this will be even more possible under a Clinton administration rather than a Trump one.

This is possible, though I don't know what the evidence of it is.

The validation of the right wing uprisal we are witnessing right now. That is the main problem with Trump winning, it will damage and set back the social progress we've had, because it's already happening, globally.

[the_dork_lord]

But is also my opinion that this will be even more possible under a Clinton administration rather than a Trump one.

This is possible, though I don't know what the evidence of it is.

The validation of the right wing uprisal we are witnessing right now. That is the main problem with Trump winning, it will damage and set back the social progress we've had, because it's already happening, globally.

Ok, but how would electing someone else on the far right be better?

The rise of right populism is a product of neo-liberalism. How would electing a neo-liberal stop right populism?

[the_dork_lord]

But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.

It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's followers are bigots, no doubt, but many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ns-support

[Dr_Liszt]

It won't.

But the real left has no voice and the liberal left is idiotic, I don't see any way this could be counter attacked by any group. A Trump win will just make people like me vulnerable to racist attacks by people who now feel validated to be cunts in a world with no hope for change. Hillary won't change the situation but the ultra-right/alt-right will lose. And after what happened with Brexit, they kind of need to lose.

[the_dork_lord]

But the real left has no voice

Which is why we should vote third party. Build one!

A Trump win will just make people like me vulnerable to racist attacks by people who now feel validated to be cunts in a world with no hope for change.

If the threat of racist violence is so powerful that we need to vote for Hillary Clinton, then it's too powerful to be stopped by voting for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary won't change the situation but the ultra-right/alt-right will lose.

But that's the thing: It won't. Clinton and her ilk are responsible for the rise of the alt-right. Electing her only gives them a new rallying cry.

[Cassius Clay]

But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.

It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's followers are bigots, no doubt, but many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ns-support

Nah, son.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ce=twitter

[Derived Absurdity]

I think economic insecurity and desperation may have something to do with Trump, but I think the far bigger factor, the one that dwarfs everything else, is clearly white (male) racism and insecurity about losing cultural/social privileges (which manifests as a backlash against "political correctness" and whatnot), as that Twitter lady explained.

Trump's supporters are not actually all that poor. Not in comparison to any other group. Yes, a lot of poor people support him, but quite a lot of middle-class people support him as well. It's been recorded that most of his primary voters were economically better off than other voters. It's not the economy, it's the racism. I think making excuses for the white working class by saying they're just economically desperate is sort of unseemly, because it works to cover up the much bigger and more insidious problem driving them.

Even with that said, the white working class is facing quite a lot of economic problems which should be recognized. Their life expectancy is falling (no one else's is). Suicide and drug abuse are sky-high. Their wages are collapsing. They have no economic future. And so on. But I can't really feel sorry for them too much because they're racist as fuck and they're willing to fall behind anyone who comes along and blames all their problems on the evil darkies coming across the border. And their economic situations can't really entirely explain their love of Trump. Racism is still the biggest problem here.

[Cassius Clay]

This new fascination people have with replacing racist motivations with seemingly less toxic greedy ones is the denial stage of White guilt.

It's not ok or enough to just ignore their bigotry and move on to "more important topics" like the banks. Don't bring knives to a gun fight.

They're on the other side of the fence plotting a race war, and we're over here contemplating using our pitchforks on the banksters instead. The epitome of tone deaf.