"I have a black friend...."

IMO, if you have to say, "I have a black friend," you might consider that you probably are racist as ****. Normal people do not say that.

noonereal said:

I don't believe I have ever used the term "weaponized" so you may be reading me through assumptions.

People generally are only accused of being a racist if they have committed a racist act. I think it's misguided to start screaming, "but I am not a racist" after so doing. You need to own it and say, "hey, my bad, I committed a racist action, stupid me." It's s "taking personal responsibility" approach. I know this is very out of vogue in America.

If you say or do something racist, don't expect an intellectual reaction. Expect that the action will identify you as a racist. It's normal and natural. People are emotional not reasoned.

If you start to claim you are not racist you are denying your racist action. Your perspective of being bullied is approaching the subject from a victimization perspective when it was you who committed a racist act. When you try to dismiss your action you are effectively invalidating the fair feelings of those you offend. That would upset every one of us.

You can defend yourself, that is fine. You will then be more aggressively attacked. It's normal and natural. Who needs that?

Click to expand...

No. People are accused of being a racist if they are perceived as committing a racist act or of saying something that is perceived as racist. Obviously that entire process is full of subjectivity and bias especially when the terms are not defined and understood the same by the parties involved.

They are also sometimes accused disingenuously and that is when the weaponizing starts. By some and in some circumstances, it is used to gain a sort of moral or intellectual leverage and then the browbeating and bullying are not far away. It can become more about silencing/ intimidating than identifying. Not a fan of letting people get away with that crap.

btthegreat said:

No. People are accused of being a racist if they are perceived as committing a racist act or of saying something that is perceived as racist. Obviously that entire process is full of subjectivity and bias especially when the terms are not defined and understood the same by the parties involved.

They are also sometimes accused disingenuously and that is when the weaponizing starts. By some and in some circumstances, it is used to gain a sort of moral or intellectual leverage and then the browbeating and bullying are not far away. It can become more about silencing/ intimidating than identifying. Not a fan of letting people get away with that crap.

Click to expand...

You have a point, I don't doubt that some are overly sensitive and too quick to accuse, but you must realize it works both ways. Take Trump supporters, how many millions of them are in denial about Trump's racism?!? I'd say there'r many more of the latter than the former.

All anyone has to do is Google, "trump racism" for as much documented proof anyone needs. I trust you don't let the deniers get away with their crap either...

calamity said:

IMO, if you have to say, "I have a black friend," you might consider that you probably are racist as ****. Normal people do not say that.

Click to expand...

I have no black friends so then by the logic of your post therefore I must have the attributes of one whose not a racist.

noonereal said:

You really think physical appearances count for much?

Click to expand...

I think it has a contagious effect. It energizes those who support you. It gets those energized supporters out talking to other people, neighbors, others at work, friends, family. Also the local news is saturated with a presidential candidates visit. Free advertisement and more important positive exposure to whomever was watching the local news that night. I don't remember who said it, but it was said one appearance is worth 20 campaign ads on TV. Most viewers just tune out those ads or switch the channel anyway.

According to CNN's exit polls 15% of the people made up their minds whom they would vote for during the last week of the campaign.

Trump hit both Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania twice each during that time period. Hillary hit Pennsylvania once without going to either Wisconsin or Michigan during the last week. The last poll in Wisconsin had Hillary ahead by six point, it was taken on 2 Nov with the election on 8 Nov. Trump won Wisconsin by 0.7%. Hillary never visited Wisconsin. Michigan, Hillary's single visit to Michigan was early in the campaign. Trump hit Michigan twice in the last week. The polls had Hillary up by 5 on 2 Nov, on 7 Nov Trafalgar issued their final poll showing Trump up by 2. Trump won Michigan by 0.3%. Pennsylvania, Clinton was up by 2 on 2 Nov although Trafalgar gave Trump a one point lead on 7 Nov. Hillary did make her final campaign appearance in Pittsburgh on the eve of the election. Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7%.

Coincidence? Make up your own mind. Personally, I think Trump concentrating on Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, 32 visits in total for Trump to those states vs. 14 for Hillary. Trump won Florida by 1.2 points. You're talking about an average victory margin of less than a single point in those four states. I believe the Trump's appearance advantage in those four states made at least a single percentage point difference.

Your opinion

Kal'Stang said:

"I have family members that are black..." When a white person who has been accused of being racist points this out....this, to SJW's, is considered as "proof" that the person is racist. Why?

Click to expand...

Why? Because most people who understand what racism is, recognize that simply knowing a black person...or having a black in-law, etc....does NOT mean you "couldn't be racist". That's why the "I have a black friend" argument has always been such a laughable one. Society is full of white racists who have a black friend, or neighbor, or in-law....yet who clearly hold bigoted views toward black people as a whole.

Ir-f a person is actually a racist then they wouldn't love their family members or friends that happen to be black.

Click to expand...

Says whom? You? That's not necessarily how racism works. Clearly, you haven't been on the other end of the racism issue, many times. You should consider talking to you black friend or in-law about it. You'll soon realize that even some racists have "black friends", or at least cordial relations with black neighbors, co-workers, etc. Being a racist or bigot doesn't make them sociopaths. Most racists separate individuals from the groups they dislike/distrust.

All they're doing is trying to defend against the claim that they're racist. That's it. That doesn't make them racist.

Click to expand...

Doesn't necessarily make one a bigot or racist. Correct. But it does indicate they don't understand what it really looks like. It's an absolute indicator of tone-deafness.

Even with the new "definition" of "racist" that makes all whites out to be racist simply because they exist in this world.

Click to expand...

No idea what you're talking about.

Essentially what SJW's have done is make it to where its a circular argument. A never ending argument that always means that the white person being accused of being a racist...will always be considered a racist. And that's their goal. If you're white...you're racist. Period. There is simply nothing that a white person can do to prove that they're not racist to these folks.

Click to expand...

Stop acting like you're helpless. It's really simple. If you don't want to thought of as a bigot...or a racist, don't say bigoted things...and don't do racist things. It's not that complicated.

btthegreat said:

No. People are accused of being a racist if they are perceived as committing a racist act or of saying something that is perceived as racist. Obviously that entire process is full of subjectivity and bias especially when the terms are not defined and understood the same by the parties involved.

They are also sometimes accused disingenuously and that is when the weaponizing starts. By some and in some circumstances, it is used to gain a sort of moral or intellectual leverage and then the browbeating and bullying are not far away. It can become more about silencing/ intimidating than identifying. Not a fan of letting people get away with that crap.

Click to expand...

This post is mistaken. The work of an angry old white man. A victim.

Perotista said:

I think it has a contagious effect. It energizes those who support you. It gets those energized supporters out talking to other people, neighbors, others at work, friends, family. Also the local news is saturated with a presidential candidates visit. Free advertisement and more important positive exposure to whomever was watching the local news that night. I don't remember who said it, but it was said one appearance is worth 20 campaign ads on TV. Most viewers just tune out those ads or switch the channel anyway.

According to CNN's exit polls 15% of the people made up their minds whom they would vote for during the last week of the campaign.

Trump hit both Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania twice each during that time period. Hillary hit Pennsylvania once without going to either Wisconsin or Michigan during the last week. The last poll in Wisconsin had Hillary ahead by six point, it was taken on 2 Nov with the election on 8 Nov. Trump won Wisconsin by 0.7%. Hillary never visited Wisconsin. Michigan, Hillary's single visit to Michigan was early in the campaign. Trump hit Michigan twice in the last week. The polls had Hillary up by 5 on 2 Nov, on 7 Nov Trafalgar issued their final poll showing Trump up by 2. Trump won Michigan by 0.3%. Pennsylvania, Clinton was up by 2 on 2 Nov although Trafalgar gave Trump a one point lead on 7 Nov. Hillary did make her final campaign appearance in Pittsburgh on the eve of the election. Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7%.

Coincidence? Make up your own mind. Personally, I think Trump concentrating on Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, 32 visits in total for Trump to those states vs. 14 for Hillary. Trump won Florida by 1.2 points. You're talking about an average victory margin of less than a single point in those four states. I believe the Trump's appearance advantage in those four states made at least a single percentage point difference.

Your opinion

Click to expand...

Good post. Not sure anyone can disagree.

noonereal said:

This post is mistaken. The work of an angry old white man. A victim.

Click to expand...

Back to that cliched crap . Whether it is the work of a 'angry old white man' or a 13 year old Asian trans, you should be able to rebut the' mistake' with either reason or fact.

noonreal, when you are empty, just admit it, or you could decide to say nothing at all.

SoCal said:

You have a point, I don't doubt that some are overly sensitive and too quick to accuse, but you must realize it works both ways. Take Trump supporters, how many millions of them are in denial about Trump's racism?!? I'd say there'r many more of the latter than the former.

All anyone has to do is Google, "trump racism" for as much documented proof anyone needs. I trust you don't let the deniers get away with their crap either...

Click to expand...

Its hard to know what to do with them at this point. Its so pervasive throughout the movement and consistent in its application. I am sure there is some space between nationalists and white nationalists, but other than objecting to the label of 'deplorable', what have the nationalists done to make sure this administration does not become a form of superglue?

Perotista said:

When a candidate from 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 makes only 71 campaign appearances/visit, let's her opponent make 116 during that same time frame, that is being lazy on the campaign trail in my book. When a candidate fails to make a single campaign visit to a state, let's her opponent make 5, did she really want to win that state. That was Wisconsin. Michigan wasn't much better, 6 Trump visits, stops to Hillary's one.

My opinion on that is she either thought she had those states won, in the bag or just didn't care about them. There's a lot of things a candidate can't control. But campaigning, the number of visits, appearances, rallies held etc. is something Hillary had direct personal control over. Yet she let Trump have the campaign trail to basically himself.

She had direct control over her campaign strategy which was about as inept as one can get. She ran a ho hum campaign, no energy. She came across to many folks as she must think she had the election won and didn't have to work at winning it.

Trump was calling into almost every morning show every day. Hillary took over 200 days between press conferences and would only appear on shows that were very pro Clinton, like the View. Did she think the election was going to be handed to her on a silver platter? Her lack of work ethic sure seems to say so.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't make excuses for Hillary, but I also don't use Hillary as an excuse for Trump winning. People who voted for Trump approved of Trump, and were excited to vote for him. You keep ignoring the fact that Trump excited his base and excited voters. Hillary excited nobody. And Trump made promises that connected with people, whereas, Hillary didn't really offer much of anything other than not being Trump.

You really need to stop acting like the only reason Trump won is because Hillary is so bad. Trump won in the primaries, and he got more votes than anybody in the history of the GOP primary. He had real support. Hillary had soft support.

SheWolf said:

Again, I don't make excuses for Hillary, but I also don't use Hillary as an excuse for Trump winning. People who voted for Trump approved of Trump, and were excited to vote for him. You keep ignoring the fact that Trump excited his base and excited voters. Hillary excited nobody. And Trump made promises that connected with people, whereas, Hillary didn't really offer much of anything other than not being Trump.

You really need to stop acting like the only reason Trump won is because Hillary is so bad. Trump won in the primaries, and he got more votes than anybody in the history of the GOP primary. He had real support. Hillary had soft support.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Everyone pretends they are not assholes for supporting Trump because Hillary. No, people. You are still assholes.

Perotista said:

I think it has a contagious effect. It energizes those who support you. It gets those energized supporters out talking to other people, neighbors, others at work, friends, family. Also the local news is saturated with a presidential candidates visit. Free advertisement and more important positive exposure to whomever was watching the local news that night. I don't remember who said it, but it was said one appearance is worth 20 campaign ads on TV. Most viewers just tune out those ads or switch the channel anyway.

According to CNN's exit polls 15% of the people made up their minds whom they would vote for during the last week of the campaign.

Trump hit both Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania twice each during that time period. Hillary hit Pennsylvania once without going to either Wisconsin or Michigan during the last week. The last poll in Wisconsin had Hillary ahead by six point, it was taken on 2 Nov with the election on 8 Nov. Trump won Wisconsin by 0.7%. Hillary never visited Wisconsin. Michigan, Hillary's single visit to Michigan was early in the campaign. Trump hit Michigan twice in the last week. The polls had Hillary up by 5 on 2 Nov, on 7 Nov Trafalgar issued their final poll showing Trump up by 2. Trump won Michigan by 0.3%. Pennsylvania, Clinton was up by 2 on 2 Nov although Trafalgar gave Trump a one point lead on 7 Nov. Hillary did make her final campaign appearance in Pittsburgh on the eve of the election. Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7%.

Coincidence? Make up your own mind. Personally, I think Trump concentrating on Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, 32 visits in total for Trump to those states vs. 14 for Hillary. Trump won Florida by 1.2 points. You're talking about an average victory margin of less than a single point in those four states. I believe the Trump's appearance advantage in those four states made at least a single percentage point difference.

Your opinion

Click to expand...

Have you seen Trump's rallies? Have you seen Hillary's?

Trump's rallies were really animated. He got people chanting to build walls, and lock people up. Some of rallies even looked violent. But nonetheless, the base was eating it up and loving the fan fair and entertainment.

If Hillary held more rallies in those states with her pro-establishment, boring and empty talking points, it wouldn't have changed a thing.

calamity said:

Exactly. Everyone pretends they are not assholes for supporting Trump because Hillary. No, people. You are still assholes.

Click to expand...

A lot of Trump supporters are not going to vote Democrat, and never will, because they are Republican. Trump won the Republican primaries, because the GOP base really likes him. They are very loyal to Trump.

The fact that he won the primary and excited the base, wouldn't have changed anything if Trump were running against another Democrat. If it were Bernie against Trump, the same Republican base would have backed Trump with excitement. If it were Obama against Trump, the same thing.

Romney did not excite the base. Trump excites the base.

People need to stop acting like Trump's loyal base would have voted for a Democrat if it wasn't for Hillary, or that people hated voting for Trump. People hated voting for Hillary. Trump had the excitement, and 80% of Republicans still view him favorably. Trump voters don't view Trump as a ****ty president they weren't proud of voting for. It's the opposite.

btthegreat said:

Its hard to know what to do with them at this point. Its so pervasive throughout the movement and consistent in its application. I am sure there is some space between nationalists and white nationalists, but other than objecting to the label of 'deplorable', what have the nationalists done to make sure this administration does not become a form of superglue?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not clear what your question is asking.

I didn't know nationalists come in any other color other than white. I just Googled 'non-white nationalists' and came up blank.

We have all kinds so I don't doubt they might exist, after all there's a handful of blacks in The Cult...

SheWolf said:

Again, I don't make excuses for Hillary, but I also don't use Hillary as an excuse for Trump winning. People who voted for Trump approved of Trump, and were excited to vote for him. You keep ignoring the fact that Trump excited his base and excited voters. Hillary excited nobody. And Trump made promises that connected with people, whereas, Hillary didn't really offer much of anything other than not being Trump.

You really need to stop acting like the only reason Trump won is because Hillary is so bad. Trump won in the primaries, and he got more votes than anybody in the history of the GOP primary. He had real support. Hillary had soft support.

Click to expand...

I think you need to take a good look at Gallup. A full 25% of all Americans disliked both major party presidential candidates. They certainly weren't excited. 54% of all independents disliked or viewed both major party candidates unfavorably.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

there's no doubt Trump had his fevered avid followers or supporters. What percentage of Americans were those?

I proposed that Trump's excited supporters could be determined by the amount of people who viewed Trump Very Favorably. I'll leave out somewhat favorable, that means luke warm toward him or the feeling that he isn't exactly what we want, but better than Hillary. Just Very Favorably.

Question 11 gives you that. 47% of Republicans, 20% of independents, 3% of Democrats.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

CNN exit polls provide the percentage of whom actually voted. 36% Democrat, 33% Republican 31% independent

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Math time. 1.08% Democrat, 15.51 Republican, 6.2% independents, 32.5% of all those who actually voted viewed Trump very favorably. You can put them in the excited pro Trump column. The rest of the 46% of the vote Trump received were the anti Clinton voters, 13.5% of the total vote or 29.3% of Trump's total votes received.

I totally agree, Trump excited his base. Now his base was no where near enough for him to win. Making up approximately one third of the total electorate. This I don't think has changed. Only about a third of Americans today are avid Trumpers. I will also admit Hillary didn't excite her base like Trump did his. But who's fault was that? Certainly not Trump's or any of his supporters.

My point is Trump didn't win because he excited voters, although he did his base. Hillary lost because independents disliked her more than they did Trump. With them, 54% disliking both candidates, it wasn't choosing a candidate they wanted to win. They choose a candidate they least wanted to lose. independents weren't excited at all about Trump. Well, 20% of them were, but that leaves 80% who weren't. You still had 12% of independents refuse to choose between the two major party candidates, they voted against both Trump and Clinton by casting a ballot for a third party candidate. Both Trump and Hillary turned off 9 million voters so much they were willing to vote for a candidate they probably never heard of, had no name recognition, no media coverage, no chance to win, no money, but their last names weren't Trump or Clinton.

2016 was the anti election. More Americans voted against a candidate than for one. Hillary was really that bad, one can't win an election with just 33% of the total vote actually wanting you or Trump to become president. Other factors are present.

Perotista said:

I think you need to take a good look at Gallup. A full 25% of all Americans disliked both major party presidential candidates. They certainly weren't excited. 54% of all independents disliked or viewed both major party candidates unfavorably.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

there's no doubt Trump had his fevered avid followers or supporters. What percentage of Americans were those?

I proposed that Trump's excited supporters could be determined by the amount of people who viewed Trump Very Favorably. I'll leave out somewhat favorable, that means luke warm toward him or the feeling that he isn't exactly what we want, but better than Hillary. Just Very Favorably.

Question 11 gives you that. 47% of Republicans, 20% of independents, 3% of Democrats.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

CNN exit polls provide the percentage of whom actually voted. 36% Democrat, 33% Republican 31% independent

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Math time. 1.08% Democrat, 15.51 Republican, 6.2%, 32.5% of all those who actually voted viewed Trump very favorably. You can put them in the excited pro Trump column. The rest of the 46% of the vote Trump received were the anti Clinton voters, 13.5% of the total vote or 29.3% of Trump's total votes received.

I totally agree, Trump excited his base. Now his base was no where near enough for him to win. Making up approximately one third of the total electorate. This I don't think has changed. I will also admit Hillary didn't excite her base like Trump did his. But who's fault was that? Certainly not Trump's or any of his supporters.

My point is Trump didn't win because he excited voters, although he did his base. Hillary lost because independents disliked her more than they did Trump. With them, 54% disliking both candidates, it wasn't choosing a candidate they wanted to win. They choose a candidate they least wanted to lose. independents weren't excited at all about Trump. Well, 20% of them were, but that leaves 80% who weren't. You still had 12% of independents refuse to choose between the two major party candidates, they voted against both Trump and Clinton by casting a ballot for a third party candidate. Both Trump and Hillary turned off 9 million voters so much they were willing to vote for a candidate they probably never heard of, had no name recognition, no media coverage, no chance to win, no money, but their last names weren't Trump or Clinton.

2016 was the anti election. More Americans voted against a candidate than for one. Hillary was really that bad, one can't win an election with just 33% of the total vote actually wanting you to become president. Other factors are presents.

Click to expand...

I have already addressed the swing voters and his base. Both liked his rhetoric and promises. Hillary didn't stand for much of anything, other than she wasn't Trump. Yes, her campaign was weak and deeply flawed. But you cannot say the reason Trump won is entirely because of Hillary.

SheWolf said:

Have you seen Trump's rallies? Have you seen Hillary's?

Trump's rallies were really animated. He got people chanting to build walls, and lock people up. Some of rallies even looked violent. But nonetheless, the base was eating it up and loving the fan fair and entertainment.

If Hillary held more rallies in those states with her pro-establishment, boring and empty talking points, it wouldn't have changed a thing.

Click to expand...

Maybe not. It's not provable since it never happened. But she at least could have tried. I personally think it would have for the reasons I stated. That's the problem I have with Hillary, she didn't try. At least she didn't give it her best shot. She lacked the fire in the belly to become president.

I can guarantee you a Sanders or a Biden or almost any other Democrat sure wouldn't have let Trump own the campaign trail the Hillary let Trump own it. That was Hillary's own fault, he own doings or not doing.

I don't know if you could call Trump charismatic, but he certainly could excite. Hillary couldn't, she lost. Our presidential elections are basically beauty contest. Obama, had charisma, McCain and Romney didn't. Obama won. G.W. Bush, I wouldn't call him charismatic, but he had a down home feeling, charm about him. He was more charismatic than the statue Gore and Kerry although not by much. Bill Clinton had charisma up the ying yang, G.H.W. Bush and Dole had none. Bill won. Reagan was more charismatic than either Carter or Mondale. He won. Carter like G.W. Bush really didn't have much charisma, more down home charm like G.W. when he beat the uncharismatic Ford and so on.

Yes, what ever Trump had, he excited, Hillary was a ho hum wet mop. A lazy one at that. Want to win in 2020 and win easily, nominate a fresh young face with some charisma, ala Obama and Bill Clinton. Not a Hillary, Kerry, Gore. Nominate someone who appeals to independents, who doesn't turn them off. That's my advice.

SoCal said:

Sorry, I'm not clear what your question is asking.

I didn't know nationalists come in any other color other than white. I just Googled 'non-white nationalists' and came up blank.

We have all kinds so I don't doubt they might exist, after all there's a handful of blacks in The Cult...

Click to expand...

That is probably because you misunderstand my use of the modifier. A Nationalist is a person that is sees the nation-state system as the best arrangement of the international order often based on the idea that geography and shared economic or civic values are unifiers. So, he opposes globalism and is skeptical of international treaties or other agreements. A white nationalist believes in a form of nation-state protectionism based on shared ethno-centric or racial lines as unifiers.
My point was that with Trumpism American economic and cultural nationalists have been lying in bed with white nationalists as part of the same coalition. At some point they have to face the fact they exchanged vows and are now wedded. So how should we treat the married spouse of a racist who 'stands by her man?'

Instead of looking up non-white nationalism to see if such a thing exists, you could try to google black nationalism. You will find a few more but again you may still need to distinguish between describing the race of the nationalist, and the unifying principals underpinning his or her ideology .

Not to indulge the idiocy of the OP... I will tackle this topic.

It's not that "I have a black friend...." is the issue. It's the believing that that one black friend is an exception to what black people are actually like, instead of being an example of the norm of what black people are like.

btthegreat said:

That is probably because you misunderstand my use of the modifier. A Nationalist is a person that is sees the nation-state system as the best arrangement of the international order often based on the idea that geography and shared economic or civic values are unifiers. So, he opposes globalism and is skeptical of international treaties or other agreements. A white nationalist believes in a form of nation-state protectionism based on shared ethno-centric or racial lines as unifiers.
My point was that with Trumpism American economic and cultural nationalists have been lying in bed with white nationalists as part of the same coalition. At some point they have to face the fact they exchanged vows and are now wedded. So how should we treat the married spouse of a racist who 'stands by her man?'

Instead of looking up non-white nationalism to see if such a thing exists, you could try to google black nationalism. You will find a few more but again you may still need to distinguish between describing the race of the nationalist, and the unifying principals underpinning his or her ideology .

Click to expand...

Gotcha and I agree. I know there's both white and black (however few there are) nationalists as opposed to your plain'ol 'nationalist'. All three are a step backward and destructive in the long run.

Before the rise of Trumpism, back during the last Bush administration, I had thought we would never elect someone so clueless again. But now, jeez, I know I couldn't have been more wrong. I look back with admiration and respect at his presidency. He might not have been the smartest person in the room, but at least he knew it. And he knew the truth about nationalism...

“We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America. We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade – forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism. We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places, where threats such as terrorism, infectious disease, criminal gangs and drug trafficking tend to emerge,” Bush said, speaking at a national forum on liberty hosted by the George W. Bush institute in New York City. “In all these ways, we need to recall and recover our own identity. Americans have a great advantage: To renew our country, we only need to remember our values.”

The solution, Bush cautioned, was not for the U.S. to retreat internationally, but to retain the reins of leadership.”

SoCal said:

Gotcha and I agree. I know there's both white and black (however few there are) nationalists as opposed to your plain'ol 'nationalist'. All three are a step backward and destructive in the long run.

Before the rise of Trumpism, back during the last Bush administration, I had thought we would never elect someone so clueless again. But now, jeez, I know I couldn't have been more wrong. I look back with admiration and respect at his presidency. He might not have been the smartest person in the room, but at least he knew it. And he knew the truth about nationalism...

“We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America. We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade – forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism. We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places, where threats such as terrorism, infectious disease, criminal gangs and drug trafficking tend to emerge,” Bush said, speaking at a national forum on liberty hosted by the George W. Bush institute in New York City. “In all these ways, we need to recall and recover our own identity. Americans have a great advantage: To renew our country, we only need to remember our values.”

The solution, Bush cautioned, was not for the U.S. to retreat internationally, but to retain the reins of leadership.”

Click to expand...

I go back to Nixon and Reagan before Bush. Now they all look like statesmen worthy of Rushmore. This man is the most destructive force I have ever seen in that office. Generic nationalism is short-sighted. Ethnic or racial nationalism is a the cultural/ social equivalent of syphilis. Trumpism is a genetic mutation that should have been euthanized before it escaped from the lab.

btthegreat said:

Back to that cliched crap . Whether it is the work of a 'angry old white man' or a 13 year old Asian trans, you should be able to rebut the' mistake' with either reason or fact.

noonreal, when you are empty, just admit it, or you could decide to say nothing at all.

Click to expand...

take personal responsibility is my heart felt advise to the Trumpets, the angry old white men.

SheWolf said:

I have already addressed the swing voters and his base. Both liked his rhetoric and promises. Hillary didn't stand for much of anything, other than she wasn't Trump. Yes, her campaign was weak and deeply flawed. But you cannot say the reason Trump won is entirely because of Hillary.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm saying she could have easily avoided defeat. Even with a ho hum campaign, her lack of fire in the belly, lacking a work ethic on the campaign trail, throw in the Sanders supporters, her inept campaign strategy, and much more. Still everything had to align perfectly for Trump to win. The earth, moon, sun, planets, stars and even galaxies.

Hillary was indeed liked a bit more than Trump by Americans as a whole. Only 36% of all Americans had a favorable view of Trump vs. 38% for Hillary. This is what translated in Hillary's popular vote win. Her lack of attention to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even Florida is what caused her to lose in the electoral college.

Why the Democrats would nominate about the only person alive that could have lost to Trump, I'll never understand. I'm not a Democrat, so I don't have to understand. I only hope the Democrats learned a valuable lesson from 2016, that is candidates matter. There was 9 million of us who voted third party against both major party candidates, please come up with a candidate we can vote for in 2020. We or most of those won't be voting for Trump, but nothing guarantees we'll be voting for the democratic candidate either. Learn from history, don't repeat its mistakes, please don't!

Here's something to compare the 2016 major party favorable ratings among America as a whole. Look where Trump and Hillary stand. Right at the bottom. Trump must be the luckiest SOB around to have been matched up with Hillary.

Highest to lowest favorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.

1956 Eisenhower 79%
1960 JFK 75%
1960 Nixon 74%
1964 LBJ 71%
1972 Nixon 66%
1976 Carter 63%
1956 Stevenson 61%
1984 Reagan 61%
1980 Reagan 59%
1968 Nixon 59%
1968 Humphrey 58%
2008 Obama 58%
2000 G.W. Bush 58%
1976 Ford 58%
2012 Obama 57%
1996 Bill Clinton 56%
2008 McCain 55%
2000 Gore 55%
1980 Carter 54%
1984 Mondale 54%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 53%
2004 G.W. Bush 52%
1992 Bill Clinton 51%
1996 Dole 51%
2004 Kerry 51%
2008 Romney 51%
1972 McGovern 50%
1988 Dukakis 50%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 46%
1964 Goldwater 43%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38%
2016 Donald Trump 36%

Perotista said:

...I only hope the Democrats learned a valuable lesson from 2016, that is candidates matter. There was 9 million of us who voted third party against both major party candidates, please come up with a candidate we can vote for in 2020. We or most of those won't be voting for Trump, but nothing guarantees we'll be voting for the democratic candidate either. Learn from history, don't repeat its mistakes, please don't!...

...Highest to lowest favorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.

1956 Eisenhower 79%...
...2016 Donald Trump 36%

Click to expand...

I hope the Dems learned a lesson too. Hillary is just not a natural born politician and so much of politics is about, looks, style, projected image, etc. All Dems need to take this fact into consideration when they vote in their primary. Another factor was electing our first woman president, that was and will be a bridge too far for millions.

I also hope independents learned their valuable lesson too. The nine million who threw their hands up in the air and voted third party or not at all, because neither candidate who was actually going to win, didn't measure up to their lofty expectations, resulted in Trump.

I'm sure some independents still think that ending up with Trump was better than Hillary, but I believe the vast majority are smart enough to know the opposite is true. I pray they've learned from history and won't repeat the same mistake in 2020...