Emanuel Samson

[Town Heretic]

I can't believe what I am reading.

"Welcome to the party pal."

The EC is the reason we can have a president elected who has lost the popular vote. That's a round about gerrymandering, which translates to geography over people. Otherwise, one man/one vote, and we have four or five different presidents, historically speaking. To be fair, the problem is mostly a winner take all short of the national election, but it then places a non representative confederation within the EC.

 

[Traditio]

Trump is president now because land counts more than hands in our EC...that and a large, aging segment of the white community is angry about suddenly finding themselves on the downside of history, to use race as part of this meaningfully.

These are such incredibly stupid points to make. Someone from MSNBC could have written this. You are essentially shouting "Racism!" and "Rigged System!" as excuses for why Hillary Clinton lost.

It is technically correct that, if the popular vote determined the president, then Hillary Clinton would be president. That's absolutely true. The problem with this response, however, is that it's not the only, or even the most important, explanation(s) of why Hillary Clinton lost.

Because at the end of the day, Hillary Clinton knew the rules (she needed the electoral vote, not the popular vote), and she still lost (you know she didn't even bother campaigning in Wisconsin in the general, right?).

You think Bernie Sanders would have lost the electoral vote?
You think that Hillary Clinton would have lost the electoral vote to Ted Cruz?

Furthermore, you also aren't taking into account that the democrats have been wiped out on every level. Republicans control the house, the senate, and the majority of state governments. Is the electoral college responsible for that?

And tell me this: is racism responsible for the fact that former Obama voters voted for Trump? Is racism responsible for the fact that 1 in 10 Bernie Sanders primary voters ended up voting for Trump in the general election? Is racism responsible for the fact that Donald Trump flipped the Rust Belt states red? Is racism responsible for the fact that a sizeable contingent of people voted for either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein rather than for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Is racism or the electoral college responsible for the fact that over 40% of eligible voters couldn't even be bothered to vote for ANY of the candidates?

The simple fact is that Hillary Clinton was a deeply unpopular candidate who rigged the primaries against a candidate who not only was popular, but also populist. Furthermore, she ran a mostly policy-free, right-wing campaign.

That's why she lost the rust belt. You think it's because of racism? No. It's because, whereas Hillary Clinton LOVES to outsource jobs, Donald Trump promised to renegotiate NAFTA, impose trade tariffs, and bring the jobs back.

You want somebody else to blame for Donald Trump's victory? Blame Bill Clinton. He signed NAFTA.

Which, if true, would mean that 60% aren't. At one point in our nation's history, most Americans were comfortable with owning people. Then they were comfortable with keeping those freed people in social bondage. So X% arguments rooted in history aren't that compelling.


Meaning the overwhelming majority know better.

You have to look at trends. What do you think those numbers would have been 20 years ago? What do you think they'll be 20 years from now?

No one who actually understands what is happening should. You'd import the same masters and they'll resist you for the reasons given, as will the left. And most people within the state you propose wouldn't want to be members because of the racist foundation in any event. It's a twisted and dead dream you're peddling, but one both progressives and the ruling elite appreciate.

I agree that a white ethnostate alone wouldn't solve the problem. A nationalist socialist white ethnostate would.

 

[Tambora]

What will a white ethnostate really accomplish?

If it were a state in which there was only one race (color), then there can be no racism practiced in that state because there are no other colors there to be racist against.
But that's not really what an ethnostate is.

Wouldn't such a state be filled with millions of young white cultural Marxists and feminists? And who would qualify as "white". I'm Latino, fairly dark, but two of my 8 great-grandparents are straight up white Europeans. Do I count as "white"? And where would this white ethnostate be located?

I don't think an ethnostate actually creates a place for ONLY one color to live in.
It is more about assimilation .
As with Israel in the bible.
They were to remain a separated people from the rest of the world.
Non-Israelites could certainly live in Israel, but were required to assimilate to their culture.
It wasn't, "Hey Israel, you need to change you culture to assimilate my culture for showing up".
In fact, it was multiculturalism that sent Israel into a tailspin by allowing other cultures within --- such as worship of pagan idols and allowing shrines and altars of pagan gods.

 

[Town Heretic]

These are such incredibly stupid points to make.

Like being told you're the better Catholic by the Pope.

Someone from MSNBC could have written this. You are essentially shouting "Racism!" and "Rigged System!" as excuses for why Hillary Clinton lost.

No, I'm not, but I can see why you'd want to believe it. In fact, I was going to be disappointed either way, but the system as it sits is built so that the actual will of most of the citizens can be and has been thwarted. I don't believe that's a great way to instill respect for our institutions. Mostly, historically, it hasn't been an issue. Lately it's cropped up a bit.

It is technically correct that, if the popular vote determined the president, then Hillary Clinton would be president. That's absolutely true. The problem with this response, however, is that it's not the only, or even the most important, explanation(s) of why Hillary Clinton lost.

It's exactly why she lost, but I don't care that she lost. I'm not the least bit disappointed by her disappointment. I care that the system allowed it.

You think Bernie Sanders would have lost the electoral vote?

I think it would have been an interesting election cycle, but I don't know. I suspect he might have.

Furthermore, you also aren't taking into account that the democrats have been wiped out on every level. Republicans control the house, the senate, and the majority of state governments. Is the electoral college responsible for that?

Of course not. Have I stated that it is or lamented that larger fact? I don't believe you'll quote me doing so.

And tell me this: is racism responsible for the fact that former Obama voters voted for Trump?

Who said that's what happened? The last time I looked at the numbers it was more about Hillary not galvanizing her base the way Obama did, though she still did well enough to win, except for the system in play, again. Again, outside of my complaint about the system, one I'd have felt the same about had Trump been on the losing side while carrying the popular vote, I don't really have a horse in the race.

Is racism responsible for the fact that 1 in 10 Bernie Sanders primary voters ended up voting for Trump in the general election?

If true, I can't say but I'd suggest gender a more likely culprit there. Bernie was an old white guy about as opposed to Trump as you could imagine. Only the irrational could switch from Trump or Bernie to the other.

Is racism responsible for the fact that Donald Trump flipped the Rust Belt states red?

The margins were so close it's not really that dramatic. And it's telling that he won while losing the popular vote when we note, as you only just did, how dominant the Republican party was otherwise.

The simple fact is that Hillary Clinton was a deeply unpopular candidate who rigged the primaries against a candidate who not only was popular, but also populist. Furthermore, she ran a mostly policy-free, right-wing campaign.

I think they were both horrible candidates, but you've avoided the actual role race played in potentially winning (after a fashion) the White House for Trump. By insisting on putting the focus on Hillary you avoid Trump's racial history, rhetoric, and the way undeniably racist elements rallied to him. That may well have been the difference in a few places where the margins were all.

You have to look at trends. What do you think those numbers would have been 20 years ago? What do you think they'll be 20 years from now?

In 20 years if the Republican party doesn't start coming up with ideas the country will be essentially socialist. The Millennials are being won by that at a 2 to 1 rate, the last time I saw figures.

I agree that a white ethnostate alone wouldn't solve the problem. A nationalist socialist white ethnostate would.

No, and for the reasons given prior and unaddressed by anything in this post.

 

[Traditio]

Also, of course, and this goes without saying:

Pay no attention to the fact that Trump promised to bring back Glass-Steagall and take on big pharma.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton gave paid speeches to Goldman Sachs.

But no. Obviously. Racism is why she lost.

 

[Town Heretic]

Also, of course, and this goes without saying:

Pay no attention to the fact that Trump promised to bring back Glass-Steagall and take on big pharma.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton gave paid speeches to Goldman Sachs.

But no. Obviously. Racism is why she lost.

I've never said racism is why she lost. And by lost I mean in the sense that we understand it and not in the sense of actually losing the confidence and votes of millions more Americans than the declared winner.

You should look at what I actually just finished writing. I even addressed the potential role of racism in helping Trump win an EC majority.

 

[chair]

A nationalist socialist white ethnostate would.

Who would be considered "white" in such a state? What is "ethno" about it? What happens to "non-whites"?