Why People Voted For Trump – For Those Who Don't Get It

[sunmaster14]

All the disparate impact stuff you hate and already have expressed skepticism about.

The first one off the top of my head is voter ID laws. A lot of evidence seems to be it has a much larger impact on legally eligible minorities.

I would still consider that race neutral. Just because you can find positive correlations with race doesn't mean it's not neutral. Neutrality has to do with intent. You can also say that Google is not race neutral in how it hires its coders. Or gender neutral for that matter. Although I doubt very much that Google wants to discriminate against good coders based on gender or race.

 

[Meadmaker]

I would still consider that race neutral. Just because you can find positive correlations with race doesn't mean it's not neutral. Neutrality has to do with intent. You can also say that Google is not race neutral in how it hires its coders. Or gender neutral for that matter. Although I doubt very much that Google wants to discriminate against good coders based on gender or race.

But that's the point. The law is neutral. The effect isn't.

As for intent, I doubt the intent of that specific case is neutral, either, but that's a different topic.

I'll give an example and try to relate it to the OP. Mass transit funding. If you raise or lower mass transit subsidies, there will be a disproportionate effect on black people because they are concentrated in urban areas. Obviously, mass transit subsidies aren't directly tied to race, so the law is neutral, but the effect isn't. Now, here's the OP connection. Suppose someone in Clearwater, Michigan decides he really doesn't want to pay taxes to subsidize bus systems in Detroit, so he votes for candidates (probably Republican) who oppose such subsidies. Someone might holler, "Racist!" That's the kind of thing that drives people toward Trump.

 

[WilliamSeger]

But that's the point. The law is neutral. The effect isn't.

As for intent, I doubt the intent of that specific case is neutral, either, but that's a different topic.

There are plenty of examples of policies that are "race neutral" on their face but which are differentially applied in a racist manner, such as Michigan's Emergency Manager law and "stop and frisk."

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

For instance?

Hillary Clinton's campaign. She deserted White working class Americans.
Chris B.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Hillary Clinton's campaign. She deserted White working class Americans.
Chris B.

What policy was a desertion?

 

[varwoche]

Hillary Clinton's campaign. She deserted White working class Americans.
Chris B.

What a load of vague baloney.

I'm left with the operating assumption that your statement was a paranoid, racist fantasy. Here's a reminder, to keep you focused:

When you try to remove power from one race in favor of another, it's wrong.

So again -- for instance?

 

[Darat]

Hillary Clinton's campaign. She deserted White working class Americans.
Chris B.

You mean apart from all those that voted for her?

 

[Darat]

I must be niave as I thought people voted for Trump because they wanted him to be president.

 

[Polaris]

You can be as optimistic as you like: but in the last 12 months Donald Trump steamrolled over the best that the Republican party could throw at him and the best candidate the Democrats could put up. Trump is now the most powerful man in the world, in control of the most powerful army in the world. He has gathered together a team of the worst people in the world to run the most powerful nation in the world. And you are about to find out that your fabled systems of "checks and balances" really only hung together by virtue of the fact that both sides used to play "relatively fair." If there is one thing that Trump won't do is play fair.

Snipped for size...

I can't agree with the part in bold. Clinton wasn't the best the Democrats had to offer, and part of the reason they lost was because the DNC gave her the nomination as some half-assed lifetime achievement award rather than choose a candidate people would actually want to vote for instead of just not vote against.

 

[Garrison]

Snipped for size...

I can't agree with the part in bold. Clinton wasn't the best the Democrats had to offer, and part of the reason they lost was because the DNC gave her the nomination as some half-assed lifetime achievement award rather than choose a candidate people would actually want to vote for instead of just not vote against.

A great deal of truth in this, there was a sense that it was Clinton's turn after the disappointment of 2008. not a great basis to choose a candidate.

 

[Mumbles]

I think one thing that is happening in America is extreme polarization. I see your commentary as kind of extreme. I don't think Bill Clinton was a racist, or even pandered to racists, but you seem to condemn his actions. (Perhaps I misunderstand, but that's what it seems. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm just giving an impression.)

Perhaps you aren't listening to the same people, then. That Reagan slashed funding to "urban" areas, and funneled fund to whiter areas, and that he worked to dismantle civil rights, isn't really up for debate. That people still remember Hillary's "superpredator" comment, and still hated it, should be obvious to anyone that was paying attention to young and minority voters - even after she apologized, protestors were still showing up with signs reading "I am not a superpredator." And Bill Clinton was widely seen as pandering to racists even back in 1992.

Again, a lot of the dem base is simply not here for that garbage any more. And in truth, a large part of that is a reaction to the weekly videos of black people being attacked by police without justification, and the rise of bigotry on social media. Black Lives Matter, for example, is ultimately a reaction to seeing Trayvon Martin murdered by a racist vigilante, and then watching many people (mostly but not entirely conservative) rush to insult Martin.

However, perhaps Bill Clinton's deliberate courting of the center would be enough today to lose the nomination fight. Hillary seemed to move a bit left to counter a fight against Bernie Sanders.

Truth is that Sanders lost because he ran a crappy campaign. He was unable to discuss much of anything outside Wall St., he completely failed to court nonwhite voters, and he basically skipped the south entirely. Regardless of why he did this, he wasn't much of an opponent.

The Republicans are much more extreme in this regard. I think it would have been very difficult for a reasonable Republican to get the nomination this year. I think you have to be a demagogue, if not an outright kook. I find this troubling. I fear that we will face a choice of extremists for a while.

Trump had many benefits (and still couldn't get a majority in either primaries or general election), including massive free press, a strange reluctance to call out clear bigotry for what it is, and Comey's interference. And even then, she lost by thin margins in a handful of states - basically, an anomaly. Your suggestion would have crushed her support, for no gain.

 

[Mumbles]

Why not represent all Americans without looking at race as the qualifier to do so........
Chris B.

Um...you called yourself a "proud" Trump voter. Trump has quite openly called for policies that discriminate based on superficial traits. You're not in a position to lecture here.

(also, I'm fine with the idea of "taking power" from a group that has disproportional power, and uses it to inflict harm on others. Trump is the exact person who promises to use disproportional power to harm others, and has actually done so throughout his life, as his long trail of lawsuits and scams show.)

 

[banquetbear]

Snipped for size...

I can't agree with the part in bold. Clinton wasn't the best the Democrats had to offer, and part of the reason they lost was because the DNC gave her the nomination as some half-assed lifetime achievement award rather than choose a candidate people would actually want to vote for instead of just not vote against.

...she was the best that they put forward. Bernie didn't get the votes. No one else was standing. I personally thought that Bernie would get destroyed by Trump. People actually did want to vote for Hillary. Millions more people voted for Hillary than they did Trump. But we don't have a time machine. And we can't change the past. So if you want to believe that someone else could have been a better pick you are welcome to believe that. That really doesn't negate my point. Nothing the Republicans nor the Democrats did stopped Trump. Trump massively underspent Clinton, broke all the normal "rules of the game" and ended up President of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Over the next four years people are going to be fighting to hold the line: to keep the damage to a minimum. Many people have already started that fight. People need to get with the programme, not worry about little things like "well Bernie would have won!", figure out how exactly Trump manage to win the presidency and to stop him from doing it again in four years time.

 

[shuttlt]

Um...you called yourself a "proud" Trump voter. Trump has quite openly called for policies that discriminate based on superficial traits. You're not in a position to lecture here.

Not an American, so forgive my ignorance. What policies are those (I'm not asking for an exhaustive list)?

 

[banquetbear]

I disagree with this description. The US has always been Low on political custom. This is a country that generally teaches Nixon's Saturday night massacre as a Constitutionally legitimate strategy.

...I don't think something that happened 40 years ago is weighing heavily on the thoughts of the modern generation. Some people are still in the mindframe that Trump won't be able to do anything that bad: because the system won't let him. Those people are in for a rude awakening.

 

[Mumbles]

Not an American, so forgive my ignorance. What policies are those (I'm not asking for an exhaustive list)?

Among other issues were his ban of muslim immigrants, which changed into a ban on immigration from "muslim countries" regardless of the beliefs of the person in question. He also endorsed nation-wide stop-and-frisk, based on the NYC model under which black and brown people were harassed, and sometimes arrested and/or attacked based on "furtive movements" such as looking at the cop for the incorrect length of time, or moving at the incorrect speed. In both cases "incorrect" is entirely at the individual cop's discretion.

And of course, there's still his weird conspiracy theory about Mexico sending violent criminals to the US.

 

[shuttlt]

Among other issues were his ban of muslim immigrants, which changed into a ban on immigration from "muslim countries" regardless of the beliefs of the person in question.

Thanks, that clarifies it a little, I thought maybe you had meant skin colour or something rather than culture or country. I thought it was bringing back NSEERS. Is that something else, or is that what this policy evolved into?

He also endorsed nation-wide stop-and-frisk, based on the NYC model under which black and brown people were harassed, and sometimes arrested and/or attacked based on "furtive movements" such as looking at the cop for the incorrect length of time, or moving at the incorrect speed. In both cases "incorrect" is entirely at the individual cop's discretion.

OK. So these policies don't explicitly discriminate, but they will impact one group more than another?

And of course, there's still his weird conspiracy theory about Mexico sending violent criminals to the US.

That's not really discrimination based on a superficial trait though.

 

[thaiboxerken]

All the disparate impact stuff you hate and already have expressed skepticism about.

The first one off the top of my head is voter ID laws. A lot of evidence seems to be it has a much larger impact on legally eligible minorities.

Evidence plays no role in conservative politic.

 

[trustbutverify]

I must be niave as I thought people voted for Trump because they wanted him to be president.

That's what I naively thought. Turns out, liberal elitists (Satan) insisted they do so, and are now 100% responsible for the policies of a candidate they chose not to vote for.

 

[Mumbles]

Thanks, that clarifies it a little, I thought maybe you had meant skin colour or something rather than culture or country. I thought it was bringing back NSEERS. Is that something else, or is that what this policy evolved into?

With Trump, who knows?

OK. So these policies don't explicitly discriminate, but they will impact one group more than another?

In theory, it doesn't target anyone in particular. In practice, several recordings have featured NYPD supervisors outright telling cops to target black and brown people, and when the previous mayor was confronted with the dismal success rate of the program, and it's disparate impact on black and brown people, his response was that police should target black and Hispanic people more, and white people less.

That's not really discrimination based on a superficial trait though.

Country of origin strikes me as rather superficial as far as US immigration goes. There's also the issue that most illegal immigrants are not from Mexico at all.