Jump to content

What if your employer fired you for supporting Trudeau?


sharkman

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Give me a break, every time someone from Hollywood talks about climate change the self-identified 'right' spew more hate than all the smokestacks in the world combined spewing C02. This victim card is getting tired. Trump supporters are not victims, and pretending they are is childish.

You don't seem to understand how the vitriol plays into Trump's hands by making him look like the reasonable one. The same dynamic affects climate skeptics who use words like 'hoax' instead of simply talking about the unjustified claims of certainty when it comes to predictions of the effects of climate change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TimG said:

Who cares?   People have been passed over for employment for a couple centuries because of the colour of their skin.  

So you solution for bigotry is more bigotry? I am of the opinion that supporters of "progressive" causes are the worst bigots we have in society today. It appears you think this is a good thing which makes you quite the hypocrite whenever you complain about discrimination.

Keep in mind that some may consider it a slightly different situation when the discrimination is about something which can't be controlled and/or which shouldn't affect your job performance (e.g. skin color), and something that can be controlled. Those Trump voters looked at all available options and said "Yup, I'm going to select this racist Orangutan as president, even though he said he's going to take away several rights from people". Nobody forced the Trump voter to select the racist Orangutan. There was all sorts of evidence that selecting the racist Orangutan may be counter-productive to improving the country. But they did anyways.

As for the bigger question about whether it would be OK to fire a Trump supporter, I'd say probably not. Except for perhaps under the following cases:

- Their support for Trump caused disruption at work (e.g. if he started repeating pro-trump nonsense to people.)

- Their job specifically called for the person not to be a racist (e.g. you work for an organization that deals with minorities), in which case voting for a racist Orangutan might suggest you're not quite qualified for the job

Although to be honest, I'd say that if I had a choice between 2 equally qualified job candidates, one a Trump supporter and one not, I would definitely pick the non-Trump supporter. After all, Trump won the election in large part by preying upon some pretty negative aspects... peoples gulability (on you really think I'm going to drain the swamp? Ha!), ignorance, and their racism. I'd rather not have anyone working for me that had those characteristics. While there is no guarantee the non-trump supporter would be any smarter or less bigoted, its more likely that that is the case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TimG said:

Nothing comes close to the hate and vitriol emanating from the left.

I don't think you've seen anything yet.

Quote

All these people are doing is ensuring that Trump will get a second term.

All these people are doing is throwing it back in your faces.

It's about bloody time too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Keep in mind that some may consider it a slightly different situation when the discrimination is about something which can't be controlled and/or which shouldn't affect your job performance (e.g. skin color), and something that can be controlled.

American voters were offered two extremely unpalatable choices. I would have held my nose and voted for the one with many policies I adamantly oppose but I can hardly criticize other people whose judgement fell on the other side of the line.The Trump voters I know voted for him in spite of his general obnoxious appeal to negativity. It is simply wrong to make an assumption about someone simple based on knowledge of their voting choice. This is why bigotry is so problematic: it leads people to make decisions about individuals based on group behavior and it wrong when applied to race and it wrong when applied to political choice.

Now if there are additional factors such as someone being obnoxious in the workplace and not showing respect for the many people that disagree with them then that is another situation. But such judgements are based on the actions of the individual - not assumptions about the group. 

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TimG said:

American voters were offered two extremely unpalatable choices.

Correction... they were offered one unpalatable choice (an oompa Loompa who spouted empty catch phrases yet little in the way of rational policies) and another who may have had some flaws, but were 1) overly exaggerated and 2) relatively minor compared to Trump's flaws. 

If this were a job interview and (for some reason, I can't imagine why) someone made the exact same claim, I would question their ability to think and reason rationally. I'd wonder why they were so uninformed, and/or so willing to accept the blatant racism from Trump.

I would have held my nose and voted for the one with many policies I adamantly oppose but I can hardly criticize other people whose judgement fell on the other side of the line.

I could certainly criticize those people.

Remember, we're not talking merely about 2 candidates with simply 2 differing sets of policies. If it were, for example, someone who voted for Romney instead of Obama, (Or, since I'm Canadian, someone voted NDP instead of Conservative) I would be accepting. After all, I recognize that in those cases at least the politician I didn't vote for usually had rational platforms. I may not have agreed with them, but I can accept that different people may be completely rational but just have different priorities.

Trump is a different kind of animal. He's racist, plus he has given very little in the way of useful policy proposals, and often what he has given is either unworkable, or contradicts other promises he has made. In other words, its not just a "difference of opinion" at work here.  

The Trump voters I know voted for him in spite of his general obnoxious appeal to negativity.

Then why did they vote for him? His wonderful policies? Like "Build a wall"? Like his wonderful health care plan? Then those people were ignorant, since even a cursory examination of the evidence would have shown that Trump's policies in those areas are failures.

It is simply wrong to make an assumption about someone simple based on knowledge of their voting choice. This is why bigotry is so problematic: it leads people to make decisions about individuals based on group behavior and it wrong when applied to race and it wrong when applied to political choice.

Once again... while you can't 100% guarantee a person who voted for Trump is less competent or more likely to be racist than a hillary supporter, its certainly evidence pointing in that direction.

If someone wears a white sheet and burns crosses, I think its rational to assume that they're racist. (Ok, maybe its not 100%, maybe they are actually going to a costume party dressed as a ghost. But its certainly strong circumstantial evidence.) If someone chains themselves to a tree in front of a logger, I'm going to assume they're an eco-nut. And if someone willingly votes for Trump and admits it, I will suggest that its strong circumstantial evidence that they are flawed in some way (either racist, or gulliable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2017 at 0:47 PM, kimmy said:

Of course it's unacceptable.  And it's actionable as well, if someone can prove they were fired (or not hired) because of their political views.

Is there a link to a story?

 -k

 

"Actionable"?

Kimmy, you have no idea how "political correctness" (or the Catholic Church) operates. The process is the punishment.

I know that you oppose Protestantism/Christian fanatics but there's a reason that Lutherans exist -God love their honest simplicity. They opposed political correctness in their day.

====

If you have a point, make it without artifice. Be plain and honest. Scandinavia, richest/most civilized societies on the planet - and also, Lutheran.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put: the Muslim world needs a Martin Luther.

But sadly, that is impossible; it won't happen.

=====

For Muslims, Mohammed (the prophet) heard and wrote the exact/direct word of God, word for word. 

Martin Luther questioned the Catholic Church - but how can any Muslim question the Exact Word of God?

Edited by August1991
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Correction... they were offered one unpalatable choice (an oompa Loompa who spouted empty catch phrases yet little in the way of rational policies) and another who may have had some flaws, but were 1) overly exaggerated and 2) relatively minor compared to Trump's flaws. 

Clinton was unpalatable to many voters because of her *policy* positions. Specifically her policies on abortion, climate change, business regulation and free speech. These have nothing to do with her grossly exaggerated faux pas' when it come to her email account or the Clinton foundation. You may not feel the same about Clinton's policy choices but you should be able to accept that a rational person would have a serious problem voting for her given her stated policies.

Second, the Orangutan could be seen of a less objectionable candidate if one assumes that:

1) The solemnity of the office would temper him;
2) He would pick a cabinet of reasonably competent people;
3) Congress and the courts would tie his hands;

Now 1) has turned out to be a pipe dream but it was plausible before the election. 2) and 3) are still plausible. So you can't really argue that it was obvious that the system could not manage with a Orangutan in charge provided one had suitably low expectations. It is rational to pick the candidate with incoherent policies if some of those polices sounded good when you absolutely hated the coherent polices of his opponent.

I am also speaking based on experience talking to Trump voters who simply do not fit into your stereotypes and by insisting on applying your stereoytypes to all Trump voters you are no better than someone saying that all Muslims are terrorists or all illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TimG said:

Clinton was unpalatable to many voters because of her *policy* positions. Specifically her policies on abortion

Ok, fine... a hardcore anti-abortionist may have a reason for selecting Trump over Clinton. However, keep a few things in mind:

- Only a small minority of voters is completely anti-abortion (~20%). That means many Trump supporters voted for Trump even though he was giving a position that they might disagree with.

- Trump himself has been both for and against abortion.

- I would consider it rather significant that a person is so against abortion that they are willing to vote for a candidate who is both racist and anti-gay.

...climate change

...

This falls into the whole 'ignorance' category.

Climate change/global warming is happening, and the vast majority of the relevant scientific community is in agreement that humans are the cause of it. If I had 2 job applicants with equal qualifications, one of which thought global warming was an issue, one of which said it was a hoax, I'd pick the one who said it was an issue, because it illustrates that they are able to engage in rational, critical thinking. The one who said "Its a hoax" (and voted for Trump as a result) is someone that doesn't seem to engage in critical thinking.

...business regulation...

Like the regulations put in place to prevent another 2008 financial meltdown?

Ok, if you're a banker/wall street executive, you may have a reason for supporting Trump. (Cutting regulations increases your profit, and you know that the people at risk are the small-time investors and/or the taxpayers.) But I doubt whether many of the people you were talking to were that wealthy.

...and free speech.

Ok, if you want to cut back on free speech you might want to vote for Trump. (After all, he's the one who talked about making it easier to sue newspapers.) Most people don't consider eliminating free speech to be a good thing.

Second, the Orangutan could be seen of a less objectionable candidate if one assumes that:

1) The solemnity of the office would temper him;
2) He would pick a cabinet of reasonably competent people;
3) Congress and the courts would tie his hands;

Now 1) has turned out to be a pipe dream but it was plausible before the election. 2) and 3) are still plausible. So you can't really argue that it was obvious that the system could not manage with a Orangutan in charge...

I don't know.. I thought it was pretty obvious that he wouldn't change even after the election. And given his track record of failed businesses and bankruptcies (many of which he blames on the people he hired) the idea that he would pick reasonable people for cabinet is questionable.

I am also speaking based on experience talking to Trump voters who simply do not fit into your stereotypes and by insisting on applying your stereoytypes to all Trump voters you are no better than someone saying that all Muslims are terrorists or all illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals.

I can look at evidence to show that the stereotypes of "all muslims are terrorists" or "illegal Mexican immigrants" are wrong. We can look at the fact that the crime rate among illegal immigrants is often lower than among native-born Americans, or the number of actual terrorist sympathizers among the muslim community is relatively small. On the other hand, Trump is a racist... he made racist statements both before and during the election, and has engaged in racist activity. That is a fact. Anyone who voted for Trump is either racist themselves, or thinks that having a racist as leader is of little concern. All Trump supporters fall into that category. If I'm an employer, I would want to avoid that. (Again, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to disqualify a Trump supporter, I'm saying if I had 2 equally qualified candidates I would definitely not pick a Trump voter.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

I would consider it rather significant that a person is so against abortion that they are willing to vote for a candidate who is both racist and anti-gay.

Now you are doing what was done to Clinton. Trump used rhetoric that attacked identifiable groups based on the actions of a minority of members. That does not make him personally a racist (at least no more than Clinton who rants about "white privilege" which is also racist rhetoric).  I don't know where you get the anti-gay thing from. That is invented.

When it comes to climate change you are also engaged in the ignorant scaremongering of the left (which is surprising given you prior nuanced statements on the topic). The fact is almost all regulation proposed by the left in the name of reducing CO2 is an expensive waste of resources. Opposing politicians that are ignorant of economics and engineering is not an anti-science position. I would say it is a pro-science position. If I had a candidate that used the terms "climate denier" or "climate justice" I would have serious concerns about their ability to think rationally.

As for regulation: you clearly have no idea about the regulatory burden being heaped on businesses in the US in the name of various progressive causes. The most recent was a requirement to track the race and salary of all employees so it can be reported to government database for future use by lawyers to mine for data to extort cash from employers. These kinds of regulations are what hurt new business development - not taxes.  Clinton promised more of the same.

Clinton's attacks on free speech come from her documented promise to restrict political donations. You can argue that her restrictions on free speech are justified but you cannot argue that she does not desire to restrict free speech.

It is a mystery why you are unable to understand that reasonable people can have very different opinions even when they agree on the facts because different people place different importance on different facts.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/24/2017 at 11:52 AM, TimG said:

Trump used rhetoric that attacked identifiable groups based on the actions of a minority of members.

That actually does sound like racism (or at least bigotry) to me, especially if the "actions" of that minority were not statistically significant when compared to the remainder of the population.

That does not make him personally a racist

What makes Trump a racist is his tendency to say racist things, and to put forward policies that are racist.

"Laziness is a trait in blacks"

- Donald J. Trump, current president of the united states

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/trump_complained_about_blacks_inherent_laziness_1991_book_says.html

Sounds pretty racist to me.

If you want something more recent, I can also point out his suggestion that an American-born judge shouldn't rule on Trump's lawsuit because he had Mexican heritage. Even many republicans said that that was racist. (Some may try to suggest that its not racist because "mexico isn't a race", but its still bigoted.

I don't know where you get the anti-gay thing from. That is invented.

"I'm opposed to gay marriage"

- Donald J. Trump, President of the United States

http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/

Now, I suppose that you could argue that being against gay marriage doesn't make you anti-gay, but that's a rather bizarre argument, since giving equal treatment regardless of whether a person is gay or straight is generally considered important.

I could also point out that he selected Pence as his running mate, a man who believes in "Pray-away the gay". as if homosexuality can and should be 'cured'.

When it comes to climate change you are also engaged in the ignorant scaremongering of the left (which is surprising given you prior nuanced statements on the topic). The fact is almost all regulation proposed by the left in the name of reducing CO2 is an expensive waste of resources.

Here's the problem... Trump did not say "we're not handling Global Warming very well". He said "Its a hoax". If he said "Its a problem but I think the best way to handle it is to build nuclear reactors and invest in biofuel powered by unicorn farts" then he would have an actual platform worth defending. Claiming "Hoax" is problematic... its both anti-science, and by claiming its not happening Trump (and other republicans who similarly deny global warming) give up any claim to contribute to concrete policy plans to handle it.

Opposing politicians that are ignorant of economics and engineering is not an anti-science position. I would say it is a pro-science position. If I had a candidate that used the terms "climate denier" or "climate justice" I would have serious concerns about their ability to think rationally.

Again, Trump was not claiming "there are better ways to handle Global warming from an engineering/economics point of view", he was saying "Hoax". That does make him a denier of global warming and anti-science. (I could also point out Trump's false claims about vaccines being linked to autism as additional evidence of an anti-science mindset.)

As for regulation: you clearly have no idea about the regulatory burden being heaped on businesses in the US in the name of various progressive causes.

I am quite aware. I also recognize that there are no easy answers.

In the past, minorities have been discriminated against. And the problem still exists in some form today. There will always be conflicting interests. While you decry the poor businesses that have to deal with various regulations (something that yes, can cause problems for a business), you also have to accept that in many cases decent workers can and will be passed over not because of ability but because of ethnic or religious background (something which also harms society).

It is a mystery why you are unable to understand that reasonable people can have very different opinions even when they agree on the facts because different people place different importance on different facts.

Once again.... Trump is racist (as my above examples show), he is anti-gay, and he is anti-science. Whatever reasons a person had for voting for Trump, when they went into the voting both, they were casting their ballot for an individual that had those characteristics. That means that either:

  • The voter themselves were racists
  • They were OK with racism
  • They were ill-informed and/or were willing to listen to "alternative" sources of information without engaging in any sort of rational/skeptic thought

None of those are traits that I would want in an employee I had working with me.

This is completely different than had someone (for example) supported Mitt Romney or George Bush in previous elections... while someone could reasonably argue that the policies of those candidates was not good, at least they were relatively rational and did not exhibit the bigotry inherent with Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:
  • The voter themselves were racists
  • They were OK with racism
  • They were ill-informed and/or were willing to listen to "alternative" sources of information without engaging in any sort of rational/skeptic thought

Nonsense. People vote for people they find distasteful all of the time because they have one vote to manage a complex web of issues. The kind of reduction-ism that you are using here is exactly the type of bigotry that criticize Trump for. I suggest you look in a mirror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2017‎-‎01‎-‎22 at 9:04 PM, The_Squid said:

How does one spot a Trump voter if they aren't being an ass, racist or innapropriate in some other way?

Oh how brilliant. You engage in the very bigotry you smeer all Trump supporters with.

Congrats Now you have proven you have nothing to contribute but the very bigotry you claim to mock you have proven the thread creator's very point and I say to that thread maker, idiots self destruct. Have faith.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, segnosaur said:

That actually does sound like racism (or at least bigotry) to me, especially if the "actions" of that minority were not statistically significant when compared to the remainder of the population.

 

 

What makes Trump a racist is his tendency to say racist things, and to put forward policies that are racist.

"Laziness is a trait in blacks"

- Donald J. Trump, current president of the united states

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/trump_complained_about_blacks_inherent_laziness_1991_book_says.html

Sounds pretty racist to me.

If you want something more recent, I can also point out his suggestion that an American-born judge shouldn't rule on Trump's lawsuit because he had Mexican heritage. Even many republicans said that that was racist. (Some may try to suggest that its not racist because "mexico isn't a race", but its still bigoted.

 

 

"I'm opposed to gay marriage"

- Donald J. Trump, President of the United States

http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/

Now, I suppose that you could argue that being against gay marriage doesn't make you anti-gay, but that's a rather bizarre argument, since giving equal treatment regardless of whether a person is gay or straight is generally considered important.

I could also point out that he selected Pence as his running mate, a man who believes in "Pray-away the gay". as if homosexuality can and should be 'cured'.

 

 

Here's the problem... Trump did not say "we're not handling Global Warming very well". He said "Its a hoax". If he said "Its a problem but I think the best way to handle it is to build nuclear reactors and invest in biofuel powered by unicorn farts" then he would have an actual platform worth defending. Claiming "Hoax" is problematic... its both anti-science, and by claiming its not happening Trump (and other republicans who similarly deny global warming) give up any claim to contribute to concrete policy plans to handle it.

 

 

Again, Trump was not claiming "there are better ways to handle Global warming from an engineering/economics point of view", he was saying "Hoax". That does make him a denier of global warming and anti-science. (I could also point out Trump's false claims about vaccines being linked to autism as additional evidence of an anti-science mindset.)

 

 

I am quite aware. I also recognize that there are no easy answers.

In the past, minorities have been discriminated against. And the problem still exists in some form today. There will always be conflicting interests. While you decry the poor businesses that have to deal with various regulations (something that yes, can cause problems for a business), you also have to accept that in many cases decent workers can and will be passed over not because of ability but because of ethnic or religious background (something which also harms society).

 

 

Once again.... Trump is racist (as my above examples show), he is anti-gay, and he is anti-science. Whatever reasons a person had for voting for Trump, when they went into the voting both, they were casting their ballot for an individual that had those characteristics. That means that either:

  • The voter themselves were racists
  • They were OK with racism
  • They were ill-informed and/or were willing to listen to "alternative" sources of information without engaging in any sort of rational/skeptic thought

None of those are traits that I would want in an employee I had working with me.

This is completely different than had someone (for example) supported Mitt Romney or George Bush in previous elections... while someone could reasonably argue that the policies of those candidates was not good, at least they were relatively rational and did not exhibit the bigotry inherent with Trump.

Your reasoning in my humble opinion is impeccable and aptly stated so I can not disagree with you. I can't even put up a devils' adviocate type response and Lord knows I love doing that. If I was American I would have voted for McCain or Romney not him. The last time around if I was Republican I would have never voted for him or Cruz.  I have to agree with you for the above well thought out comments. I think many if not most mainstream Republicans would agree with you and explain its why they were not happy when he won.  The GOP was Abe Lincoln's party. People forget that.

All that said I think he has said so many ignorant things I ask this, when are you, like Trump so consistently hateful and  ignorant in your comments of everyone, and I mean everyone, that your hatred has become  so wide spread and equal against everyone since you  aren't just singling out one people you transcend from being a bigot to just being a hateful, spiteful idiot. For me his ridiculing of John McCain for being aught and being a POW after this man was tortured and refused to be let go until the rest of his men were, has to be the ultimate insult of all insults. I thought that alone would disqualify any chance he had. He got away with it. I mean that man can't even lift his arms from the permanent damage of being strung up ad Trump ridiculed that and called him a loser for being caught? Wow.

There has to be basic decency in a President, one that shows you treat people with respect, dignity, compassion. You are upholding an office far bigger than your own personality. I just don't think he understands that the office he inherits is bigger than his personality and he must subordinate his personality to that office not the other way around.

Teddy Roosevelt had classic attention deficit  hyperactivity disorder like Trump and so blurted a lot of stuff out  on impulse ad rapid fire and like Trump was  a blow hard and loved to hear himself talk.  Its the closet analogy I have for Trump. . Roosevelt was also an independent and let's face it that is what Trump is. He's no real Republican. He's an independent who crashed their party and played the system to hijack it away from traditional Republicans. The difference though was, Teddy Roosevelt genuinely liked people. They said he would talk to anyone and treat them kindly and with respect. He was the first US President to invite blacks for dinner as equals. He talked down serious labour disputes with his ability to appeal to peoples' compassion. His troops under his command said he did exactly what he expected of them-he was not an elitist. He got doan and dirty with his men. Teddy Roosevelt was a genuine man of the people for all his flaws. Trump shows nothing but contempt for the very people he called on to vote him in unlike Teddy R one of my favourite Prez's because of the way he was able to usher in innovative changes to industry.

Trump is a far cry from Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Lincoln who I would argue were great Presidents because he lacks a basic dignity. The only brash rude man I can think of who was President was LBJ. Apparently LBJ was rude, loud, screamed at people and constantly showed his penis to people remarking how big it was and with Lester Pearson apparently physically assaulted him and called him a "fagot".

LBJ they way was a friggin mad man but his legacy was all the civil rights legislation he achieved for black people in the US. Somethng good came out of him. Will something good come out of Trump? Well its only been two weeks.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TimG said:
Quote
  • The voter themselves were racists
  • They were OK with racism
  • They were ill-informed and/or were willing to listen to "alternative" sources of information without engaging in any sort of rational/skeptic thought

Nonsense. People vote for people they find distasteful all of the time because they have one vote to manage a complex web of issues.

You keep treating racism and bigotry as if its just one minor policy difference among many. It is not. Racism and bigotry is especially heinous.... and if a president has that quality, his ability to serve as representative for roughly half the population is immediately suspect. And not only does racism and bigotry directly affect the minorities involved, it has a myriad of side effects... everything from negative economic impact (as discriminated minorities may not be given a chance to contribute to society to their full potential), potential violence (as racist policies cause a backlash), and foreign policy implications (as a racist president may not always act in the country's best interest). These side effects affect everyone, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In short, being a racist/bigot should automatically discount anyone from being a preferred candidate, full stop. End of story.

Donald Trump is a racist and a bigot. We have substantial evidence from both before he entered politics and after he started campaigning to illustrate that. Anyone who walked into the voting booth and cast their ballot for Trump, by definition, was OK with racism. You may try to justify it by saying "But people may have liked his policies", but racism should outweigh any preferences a voter may have regarding economic, regulatory or foreign policy.

The only way someone would have overlooked Trump's bigotry is if Hillary had an equally distasteful past. But since she has not shown any signs of being racist, nor did she have anything particularly disturbing in her past or in her proposed policies (no, she didn't have a plan to force live organ donations for orphans, or have a history of human sacrifices to the god Baal. And no, a few emails do not qualify), then anyone who was NOT OK with racism should have chosen her, regardless of whether you liked her stance on Obamacare or her spending plans.

One recurring joke you may see from time to time is how Mussolini "Made the trains run on time". Its often used to point out how supporting someone who has especially distasteful traits can have deleterious effects, even if there are some relatively minor positives. I get the feeling that in the future you will see the same sort of joke made about Trump... "Yes, he destroyed America's global reputation, wrecked the economy, and disenfranchised millions of minorities, but at least he made the trains run on time".

There is an episode of the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob (a recurring character who was in jail for attempted murder) is running for political office. In one clip, Homer is in the voting booth and is trying to decide who to vote for... "On one hand, I'm opposed to his Bart killing policy...". In another clip, Krusty the crown is trying to justify his vote... "Well, he did try to frame me for a crime... but I could use those tax cuts". Its a perfect analogy for Trump voters.. people making a selection of someone who clearly should not be a viable candidate, justified by petty claims that don't come anywhere near overcoming the candidate's flaws.

Edited by segnosaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, segnosaur said:

..... But since she has not shown any signs of being racist, nor did she have anything particularly disturbing in her past....

 

This is patently false of course, as Hillary Clinton's support for 90's era welfare reform and crime bills (massive incarcerations) were roundly reported then and during the 2008 and 2016 election cycles. To wit:

 

Quote

 ...We should have seen it coming. Back then, Clinton was the standard-bearer for the New Democrats, a group that firmly believed the only way to win back the millions of white voters in the South who had defected to the Republican Party was to adopt the right-wing narrative that black communities ought to be disciplined with harsh punishment rather than coddled with welfare. Reagan had won the presidency by dog-whistling to poor and working-class whites with coded racial appeals: railing against “welfare queens” and criminal “predators” and condemning “big government.” Clinton aimed to win them back, vowing that he would never permit any Republican to be perceived as tougher on crime than he.

 ...Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized. In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Both Clintons now express regret over the crime bill...

https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, segnosaur said:

You keep treating racism and bigotry as if its just one minor policy difference among many.

It is not a policy. It is a character flaw and a minor one at that. The most problematic character flaws that Trump has are that he is a narcissistic bully that take offense easily. If I was going to criticize Trump voters for ignoring character flaws I would focus on the latter.

The other point that you seem to miss is how in the age of information it is actually very hard to find reliable information. So you can roll out your examples of Trump saying absurd things and I will accept your claims because you have shown yourself to be a poster that is usually very careful with facts. I would not give other posters the same benefit of the doubt and would question whether such claims were even true. The same dynamics play out in the media and on the internet where people filter information based on how much they trust the source. So if these Trump voters are are only hearing the things you claim from untrustworthy sources then you can hardly expect them to take them as seriously as you do.

And before your go on a rant about the professionalism of the MSM means it should be trusted before some yahoo with a blog peddling "fake news", I think it is important to understand how mainstream media have undermined their credibility with larges swaths of the electorate by pandering to people with with particular political POVs. Here is the most recent example were the NYT misrepresents building activity in Israel by failing to distinguish between construction in East Jerusalem which is not seriously contested and rogue Zionists building in the West Bank in violation of Israeli laws: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/02/the-nyts-misleading-settlements-coverage/

I don't want to get into a debate about the substance of the link - the point is to illustrate why it is not reasonable you to assume that everyone should treat publications like the NYT as credible sources of information and they have valid reasons to be sceptical. And given that Trump voters do not necessarily believe the same information sources that you believe why would you expect them to come to the same conclusions that you do?

 

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, TimG said:

You keep treating racism and bigotry as if its just one minor policy difference among many.


It is not a policy. It is a character flaw...

Yes, it is a character flaw... I labeled it a 'policy' because being a racist can impact policy (plus we were comparing it to things like the environment before, which is a policy issue.)

It is a character flaw and a minor one at that.

You see, that's where I strongly disagree. I've already pointed out why being a bigot should be considered more than just a 'minor flaw'.

I guess in the grand scheme of things, if you were a Trump supporter I'd have to label  you as being "OK with racism".

The most problematic character flaws that Trump has are that he is a narcissistic bully that take offense easily. If I was going to criticize Trump voters for ignoring character flaws I would focus on the latter.

Yes, that should also have gotten him disqualified too. But the fact that he has one character flaw doesn't mean that the other character flaw (bigotry) isn't also enough to disqualify him.

The other point that you seem to miss is how in the age of information it is actually very hard to find reliable information. So you can roll out your examples of Trump saying absurd things and I will accept your claims because you have shown yourself to be a poster that is usually very careful with facts. I would not give other posters the same benefit of the doubt and would question whether such claims were even true. The same dynamics play out in the media and on the internet where people filter information based on how much they trust the source. So if these Trump voters are are only hearing the things you claim from untrustworthy sources then you can hardly expect them to take them as seriously as you do.

But I've already addressed that issue.

Yes, in theory its possible that a Trump supporter didn't hear about Trump's racism, or they heard (from sources like Infowars) about supposed evil things hillary has done. But that wouldn't justify their support of Trump to me.

If I were hiring someone and they said they voted for Trump because "Hillary was involved in Pizzagate" I would also find that a reason to be hesitant to hire them. Why? Because as a business owner, I'd want to know that any employees that I hired were able to engage in enough rational/skeptical thought to analyze sources of data and accept or reject those sources based on their accuracy/trustworthiness. Otherwise, I'd be hiring someone who is more gullible and more prone to scams and bad data than they should be.

And before your go on a rant about the professionalism of the MSM means it should be trusted before some yahoo with a blog peddling "fake news", I think it is important to understand how mainstream media have undermined their credibility with larges swaths of the electorate by pandering to people with with particular political POVs.

I never claimed that the mainstream media was perfect. Yes, occasionally they get facts wrong. Yes, sources can have biases. Yes they can sometimes be prone to sensationalism.

But, the vast majority of times when a source like the New York Times or CNN posts some bit of information, that information will almost always be true. Yes, I'm sure if you hunted down every article ever published by the Times or CNN you can probably find many things that they've gotten wrong. But if they are correct 99% of the time, that should be considered enough to say "these people are pretty darn accurate".

The accusations that the Media is "wrong" often comes from sources like Infowars (and from Trump himself)... sources that are much more flawed than the mainstream media that they are condemning. Trump: "Hey, I lied about supporting the Iraq war... but trust me when I say that the Main Stream Media is wrong!".

I recognize that The Toronto Star has a left-wing editorial slant. I recognize that Sun News generally has a right-wing editorial slant. However, I would not hesitate to refer to information published in either of these sources (regardless of their bias) because I know that the facts that they themselves published are likely correct (even if they put some sort of spin on the information.)

...the point is to illustrate why it is not reasonable you to assume that everyone should treat publications like the NYT as credible sources of information and they have valid reasons to be sceptical. And given that Trump voters do not necessarily believe the same information sources that you believe why would you expect them to come to the same conclusions that you do?

The New York Times, CNN, NBC, etc.... usually correct in the information that it prints (even if it may have an editorial bias).

Sources like Brietbart, Infowars and Trump himself... source of such alternative facts such as pizzagate and 9/11 inside-job conspiracy nonsense.

It would be nice if all Trump supporters were able to recognize that "A source which is sometimes wrong is still better than a source that is almost always wrong".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2017 at 9:15 AM, segnosaur said:

I guess in the grand scheme of things, if you were a Trump supporter I'd have to label  you as being "OK with racism".most always wrong".

Do you think that every person with moral objections to abortion votes for an anti-abortion candidate? If they do will you denigrate them as hypocrites? Voting requires prioritization and it is unreasonable for you to expect that everyone else shares your priorities. When it comes Trump's "racist policies" a voter could reasonably gamble that the courts would prevent him from acting which would make Trump a safer vote than Hillary who promised to enact policies that many people find unacceptable. IOW, Trump was a reasonable choice for people who had fundamental objections to Clinton's policies. The fact that he is a despicable individual does not make it an irrational choice - especially if one believes that the checks and balances built into the US system actually work.

 

 

Edited by TimG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Segnosaur engages in negative stereotyping of Trump supporters. That is necessarily bigoted and the identical

cognitive process bigots use to label all blacks, Muslims, etc.

Its bigoted crap.

People voted for Trump for many reasons just like people have many reasons why they are pro choice or anti abortion.

In a civilized logical world, differences are tolerated in democracies. We accommodate them by making compromises.

I may be free choice, but I strongly support the right for others to be anti abortion and vote for a candidate who reflects their views. Its their absolute democratic right just like it is mine to vote for someone pro choice.

I call for a policy that allows pro choice people their choice and anti abortions their choice.

I don't label all anti abortionists as this or that.

Many people who supported Trump did so for reasons that had nothing to do with race.

To suggest they all did is crap, purile unsubstantiated crap.

The very bigotry that goes into smeering all Trump supporters is  what would lead to behaviour firing someone for being a Trudeau supporter.

Now that said, if the job someone is in calls for them being neutral than no they can't be wearing political identity clothes.

Classic example, the voting booths . You want to work assisting the elections, no you can't wear identifiable political gear.

You want to work as a civil servant, no you can't wear political attire.

You want to come work at a synagogue and wear a Swastika, you'll have problems getting hired yes.

You want to work at a security position where your identity must be known at all times, covering your face may be a problem.

Its called common sense. Something some on this board and their rigid inflexible stereotyping can't handle.

In every argument is a middle ground. Whether you can see it or not depends on you. You ultimately see what you want to see.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

 

On 2/7/2017 at 4:02 PM, Rue said:

Segnosaur engages in negative stereotyping of Trump supporters. That is necessarily bigoted and the identical

cognitive process bigots use to label all blacks, Muslims, etc.

Its bigoted crap.

 

Actually, there is a majjor difference between bigotry and my characterization of Trump supporters.

If someone is a bigot/racist, they are taking a trait that may not be common and falsely assigning it to members of a particular group. (E.g. Trump saying "black people are lazy", "mexican immigrants are rapists",)

However, Trump voters all have one thing in common... they voted for Trump. And outside something like a mind-control ray or hostage situation, they did so willingly

Quote

People voted for Trump for many reasons...

First of all, yes there are other reasons someone may have voted for Trump. But for the most part I'd still find that questionable. After all, pretty much everything Trump had said was either 1) incredibly vague (such as "I will replace Obamacare but won't give you details"), 2) inconsistent, either with statements he himself made (e.g. the constantly changing cost of his well), or with evidence, or 3) of questionable morality or usefullness (e.g. committing war crimes to stop terrorism).

So if someone said they voted for Trump for non-racist reasons, I'd still have concerns that a prospective employee might be too gullible or lack the critical thinking skills to be an effective employee.

But lets say there was some reason a person could think of for voting for Trump. Maybe they really think millionaire deserve big tax cuts (one of the few policies that Trump has been more consistent and concrete with).

Regardless of the reason, they still walked into the voting booth, and cast their vote for someone who is a racist, It doesn't matter how much they wanted that millionaire tax cut... voting for someone who considers an entire class of people as subhuman should automatically disqualify that person as a potential candidate among voters.

Quote

I may be free choice, but I strongly support the right for others to be anti abortion and vote for a candidate who reflects their views. Its their absolute democratic right just like it is mine to vote for someone pro choice.

I never claimed Trump shouldn't be able to run. What I said was that people shouldn't vote for him.

If you hire someone, they will be representing your company. Their decisions will affect company profits, and ultimately your ability to earn a living. Hiring a racist, or someone who is gullible will potentially affect your company in a negative way. (Again, I want to stress when the decision is between 2 equally qualified candidates.) Trump voters are pretty much by definition either racists or gullible.

Now, that doesn't mean that all Clinton supporters were perfect. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find more than a few that were racist themselves or had similar flaws. But again, if I had a choice, I'd much rather hire someone who was possibly flawed, as opposed to someone who was definitely flawed.

Quote

Many people who supported Trump did so for reasons that had nothing to do with race.

To suggest they all did is crap, purile unsubstantiated crap.

 

I never claimed all trump supporters voted for Trump because of race. What I said was they were fine with racism. Since they voted for a racist. A man who said he was going to enact racist policies. That by definition makes them fine with racism.

Edited by segnosaur
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2017 at 9:08 AM, segnosaur said:

....The only way someone would have overlooked Trump's bigotry is if Hillary had an equally distasteful past. But since she has not shown any signs of being racist, nor did she have anything particularly disturbing in her past or in her proposed policies

 

Patently false...Hillary Clinton openly supported "racist" policies and legislation during the Clinton Administration (i.e. welfare reform, crime bill, "predators", etc.)

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...