# Non-Racist Trump voters wondering why they're getting shit about racism **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 14, 2016, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963 "2016-11-14T14:57:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/181 "2016-11-24T02:16:07Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Partly but not entirely. Bill Clinton really did have some odd ideas about economics that were far to the right of the New Deal Democratic Party. And he did let lots of local businesses disappear while he aligned himself with Robert Rubin. > > Pocketbook issues matter, maybe matter most of all. And Ivy Leaguer Baby Boomers like the Clintons managed to throw them away. Trump will bring these local jobs all back! Just grab those jobs in the pussy! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/182 "2016-11-24T07:21:27Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Partly but not entirely. Bill Clinton really did have some odd ideas about economics that were far to the right of the New Deal Democratic Party. And he did let lots of local businesses disappear while he aligned himself with Robert Rubin. > > Pocketbook issues matter, maybe matter most of all. And Ivy Leaguer Baby Boomers like the Clintons managed to throw them away. ISTM that Clinton in '92 was responding to the fact that the New Deal Democrats (such as they were, by that point) had abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of Ronnie Reagan and his voodoo economics, not that Clinton and the DNC had cast the NDDs aside. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/183 "2016-11-24T12:41:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Wait, so she didn’t give that speech to the bank of brazil? > > Wait, so Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who she hired after she was chased out of her position at the DNC) and Donna Brazile weren’t in the bag for her? > > Wait, so she didn’t erase emails after a subpoena was issued? Oh that’s right, she wiped it with a cloth. Is there any evidence anywhere that she deleted work-related emails? Any whatsoever? And keep in mind, all it would take is one person in government slipping up (or intentionally fingering her) and revealing a copy of an email from her that hadn’t been in the FBI’s probe but had been on their government servers, and she would have been quite thoroughly screwed - you’d think someone, somewhere might have done that if it was a thing that actually existed. > [@](#): > > Leaders have to get people to follow. She might make a good bureaucrat but what has she ever done that makes you think she would be a good president? Her long record of bipartisanship and deep understanding of domestic and foreign policy, as well as her focus on the details. If you actually know anything about Clinton’s political career, and aren’t focused entirely on the scandal-mongering that essentially devoured this election cycle, you would know that. > [@](#): > > Funny, I remember hearing the same thing in 2008. From stupid people who were wrong. I remember people saying that Obama was a fascist, too. That doesn’t mean that anyone pointing to Trump’s openly fascist qualities is automatically wrong. > [@](#): > > Democracy is best (but only if my candidate wins). amirite? Do you seriously still not get that Trump is kind of a special case here? I mean, really? > [@](#): > > That is the system we have had for 250 years and you want to chuck it because you don’t like who won this time? As a matter of principle, I would prefer if we didn’t have the electoral college, as I said in the post you quoted, and I explained my reasons at length to Herbie, because I was willing to believe he hadn’t heard this shit before - he’s not the brightest. You I expected better from. > [@](#): > > How is an elector literally ignoring the vote any better? Clinton won by over 1.5 million votes. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/184 "2016-11-24T16:53:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That’s rationalization for not releasing the contents of the speeches. Noone buys it but people who are already inclined to overlook pretty much everything that Hillary did wrong. > > If the contents really don’t matter why does the availability of the contents of last year’s speech matter? She isn’t recycling last year’s speech verbatim for $250,000 is she? > > Its these sort of unprincipled defenses Clinton’s behaviour that makes all the legitimate defenses seem unprincipled as well as if you just happened to stumble on on an excuse with some basis. So basically your argument is “Nuh-uh” and handwaving. I gave you a perfectly valid reason, you called it “rationalization” and an “unprincipled defense” and an “excuse”. Her speeches are her intellectual property, and speechwriters often do heavily recycle material (even for $250,000 a pop). Meanwhile, “I want it, therefore I have a right to it” is not a particularly compelling counterargument. > [@](#): > > And her refusal to release the contents of her speech gave him cover. Now see, **this** is what “rationalization” and “unprincipled defenses” and “excuses” look like. It is not Clinton’s fault Trump didn’t release his tax returns. He tried to claim it was because he was under audit until the IRS and Warren Buffett shot that one down. The demand that Clinton release her speeches first was a desperate afterthought. If you weren’t so emotionally invested in condemning Clinton you’d stop offering excuses for Trump. > [@](#): > > Because she was asked for the speeches before his tax returns became an issue. Cite? Because I’m pretty sure it was the other way around. > [@](#): > > No, its not. The notion that Obama was not actually born in the USA was racist bullshit. > > The notion that Clinton might have said something politically damaging during those speeches turns out to be entirely accurate. Which is entirely irrelevant to my point. Which was that “I get to demand that you give me everything I want so that I can sift through your life in order to find something I can use against you while I get to hide everything” is hypocritical bullshit. It’s the same path that led Ken Starr’s investigation from a property deal in Arkansas to a mutually-consensual sex act in the White House. The point isn’t that the speeches had damning content. The point is that the demand that she release them was without merit. Technically candidates don’t even have to release their tax returns; it’s just common practice these days. If Trump had simply refused to do so that would at least have been honest - the “I would but I can’t because A, er B, no I mean C” pretty much demonstrates that the demand for her speeches was a distraction, not a reason (and only a “cover” if you’re not paying attention). > [@](#): > > Its these sort of defenses that make all your other excuses for her behaviour seem shallow. Like you would find a way to defend pretty much anything she did no matter how far you had to stretch. I’m not defending her behaviour. I’m pointing out that your argument is rubbish. > [@](#): > > Its one of the things that made him so beatable and yet Hillary couldn’t manage that simple task. She couldn’t beat Donald Fucking Trump! That’s how bad she is. Whatever fuckgin excuse you come up with, this country elected a black man bamed barack hussein obama TWICE and you have to make excuses about why Hillary couldn’t beat donald fucking trump. I’m not making excuses for Clinton. I’m pointing out that the country is a much nastier place that people suspected. Again - it was patently obvious that no matter how bad Clinton is, Trump is worse. And people still voted for him. > [@](#): > > Yes, you seem to have a hard time getting upset about anything to do with Hillary except the fact that she lost. You seem to have a hard time understanding that throwing every criticism of Clinton into your post doesn’t actually constitute a coherent argument. Some of it is relevant. Some of it isn’t. And some of it is false. I know it’s popular to froth about Hillary and then accuse anyone who points out that you sound like a crazy person of “defending her”, but that’s really not what I’m doing here, so please try to keep up. Clinton did plenty wrong. But that doesn’t mean everything you want to pin on her is justified. > [@](#): > > Blaming Rubio and Cruz for Trump? Sure. I can agree with that. I blame the Republican party for carefully and deliberately molding their base to walk right up to the edge of blatant racism and sexism without losing plausible deniability and then acting shocked (SHOCKED I tell you) when a charlatan like Trump realizes that he can win just by crossing that line. And Hillary lost to THAT! Yes she did. Maybe that’s what a lot of voters want now. Have you considered that? > [@](#): > > Lots of insinuation that she opened herself up to. You say its all smoke. Well people said that about her speeches too until her speeches got hacked and released and it turns out she was telling the bank of brazil that she believed in open borders. You’re kind of obsessed about these speeches. People are saying. > [@](#): > > Lots of smoke you say. People were saying that about the DNC and how she was basically cheating during the primary too. All Smoke. Until they hacked Donna Brazile’s emails and found out that Hillary was being fed debate questions. The argument that its all smoke doesn’t hold water with this sort of history. Yes. And that was bad. And it’s still better than Trump’s practices. > [@](#): > > What was in the powell emails and what was in the hillary emails? We don’t know. He deleted them. Thousands of them. > [@](#): > > You’re right, she just wiped it with a cloth. Yes, that’s exactly what I said, oh wait, no it wasn’t. > [@](#): > > Tell me again what were the contents of Powells emails? How much of it was classified at the time or even afterwards and compare that to Hillary’s emails. I’ll tell you again: we don’t know. Because he deleted them. > [@](#): > > Once you establish she’s a cheater, who gives a shit. Apparently not you. Although you certainly put a lot of effort into not giving a shit. > [@](#): > > Sure, I have a list 20 names long. Biden, Rendell, Bloomberg, Bernie, Warren, etc. Any and all of them would have done better than Hillary. They would have run different campaigns, but all of them had flaws that Trump and the GOP would have hammered home. If Bernie had been the nominee we’d have heard nothing but “SOCIALIST!” for months on end which would have ended his chances with the majority of Americans in a heartbeat. Biden, while likable and experienced, was not a great campaigner or public speaker and had a history of verbal gaffes. Bloomberg was a party hopper. I would have enthusiastically supported Warren but I didn’t think she had enough experience (little did I realize that no one gives a fuck about experience anymore) and the Democrats couldn’t risk the Senate seat. Was Rendell even interested? Personally I was an O’Malley supporter but he didn’t make for exciting news coverage next to the Hillary and Bernie Show, and even he had major baggage. > [@](#): > > But they just couldn’t beat her democratic machininations in the primary. Given that none of those people actually ran apart from Bernie (who despite the insistence that he was the people’s choice mainly won Democratic caucuses, not primaries, suggesting that just maybe the “democratic machinations” weren’t very effective) and a brief dalliance by Biden, it’s all a bit speculative. > [@](#): > > So now the narrative is that Donald was an unbeatable candidate? Seriously? He beat the other republicans because he out-Republicaned them. So he’s not an unbeatable candidate; he’s a candidate who just happened to beat everyone. He was a clever enough candidate to outmaneuver all dozen-plus of his primary opponents but he was somehow too ineffectual to outmaneuver Clinton, who had to help him over the line. I guessing damning her with faint praise is fine as long as you’re still damning her. > [@](#): > > The zeitgeist didn’t move from electing Barack Obama to electing Trump because the pendulum has swung back hard. Society didn’t change, they just rejected Hillary and for reasons that are entirely Hillary’s fault. Seriously? You don’t think society has changed in a reactionary direction? Have you read the news lately? I realize you’re grooving on your Two-Minute Hate here but while Clinton’s campaign was deeply flawed Trump’s message resonated with a disturbingly large percentage of the American population and it wasn’t Clinton who made that happen. > [@](#): > > When you lose to Donald Trump, you don’t get to blame anyone else. You mean you don’t **want** to blame anyone else. > [@](#): > > If you find yourself saying that Trump was basically unbeatable, you might want to check some of your underlying assumptions about why Hillary lost and how electable she was to begin with. Translation: You don’t want to check some of your underlying assumptions about why Hillary lost and how electable she was to begin with, so you rail against anyone who contradicts you. I get it. It’s been hard for all of us to accept Trump’s win. And it’s easier to blame Clinton than to come to terms with the fact that a lot of Americans genuinely wanted to vote for the guy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/185 "2016-12-01T17:16:50Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Is there any evidence anywhere that she deleted work-related emails? Any whatsoever? They were under subpoena. You don’t get to go through your emails and decide which ones are relevant to the subpoena and which ones are not. You fight that out in court. > [@](#): > > And keep in mind, all it would take is one person in government slipping up (or intentionally fingering her) and revealing a copy of an email from her that hadn’t been in the FBI’s probe but had been on their government servers, and she would have been quite thoroughly screwed - you’d think someone, somewhere might have done that if it was a thing that actually existed. Even if the deleted emails between Hillary and the head of ISIL were not work related, they might still be germane if she discusses how she will abandon the Banghazi embassy so they can kill Americans on the anniversary of 9/11. [quoe]Her long record of bipartisanship and deep understanding of domestic and foreign policy, as well as her focus on the details. If you actually know anything about Clinton’s political career, and aren’t focused entirely on the scandal-mongering that essentially devoured this election cycle, you would know that. [/quote] Her political career? Pfft. Her bipartisanship? What he heck did she ever accomplish that was bipartisan? Hillarycare? She has never won an election that wasn’t served to her on a platter. Her primary political attribute is and always has been being married to Bill Clinton, pretty much everything flows from there. Without Bill, she would be a law partner at some firm somewhere working for the same corporate interests she has worked for all along. She might not be as rich but she would be working for the same people. Smart policy wonks are a dime a dozen in the DC area. She’s nothing special. [quoe]From stupid people who were wrong. I remember people saying that Obama was a fascist, too. That doesn’t mean that anyone pointing to Trump’s openly fascist qualities is automatically wrong. [/quote] No, What I remember hearing is that the electoral college should overturn the results of the election because some people didn’t find Obama acceptable. > [@](#): > > Do you seriously still not get that Trump is kind of a special case here? I mean, really? Special as in ride the short bus special? Yes. Special enough to abandon democracy? No. We will survive him. His only lasting legacy would be the supreme court and he wouldn’t be any worse than any other republican president in along that vector. > [@](#): > > As a matter of principle, I would prefer if we didn’t have the electoral college, as I said in the post you quoted, and I explained my reasons at length to Herbie, because I was willing to believe he hadn’t heard this shit before - he’s not the brightest. You I expected better from. I can go either way on the electoral college. I don’t thin you get to renegotiate the terms of engagement after the engagement. I don’t think you get to overturn the electoral college because California is really really really blue. > [@](#): > > Clinton won by over 1.5 million votes. Clinton lost by over 70 electoral votes. Didn’t someone explain the electoral college to Clinton after she decided to run for president? ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/186 "2016-12-01T17:39:44Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > Putting party and expedience ahead of the welfare of the country. Putting party and expedience ahead of more welfare for the country. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/187 "2016-12-01T18:14:32Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > So basically your argument is “Nuh-uh” and handwaving. I gave you a perfectly valid reason, you called it “rationalization” and an “unprincipled defense” and an “excuse”. Her speeches are her intellectual property, and speechwriters often do heavily recycle material (even for $250,000 a pop). I’m saying that your explanation is bullshit. Noone buys it. The reason she didn’t release the speeches is because it would have revealed something pertinent to the election that she didn’t want revealed. It would have been better to reveal that during the primary so that she could have bowed out then and gone back to the senate as a corporate shill in sheep’s clothing. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, “I want it, therefore I have a right to it” is not a particularly compelling counterargument. Same with tax returns. but I can still hold it against you. > [@](#): > > Now see, **this** is what “rationalization” and “unprincipled defenses” and “excuses” look like. It is not Clinton’s fault Trump didn’t release his tax returns. He tried to claim it was because he was under audit until the IRS and Warren Buffett shot that one down. The demand that Clinton release her speeches first was a desperate afterthought. If you weren’t so emotionally invested in condemning Clinton you’d stop offering excuses for Trump. Hillary is the one that gave him an excuse. I condemn Hillary because she lost to Trump. I don’t know if there is any political event that is more worthy of condemnation in recent years. > [@](#): > > Cite? Because I’m pretty sure it was the other way around. Hillary was asked for her speeches during the primary. Tax returns don’t become an issue until the general. > [@](#): > > Which is entirely irrelevant to my point. Which was that “I get to demand that you give me everything I want so that I can sift through your life in order to find something I can use against you while I get to hide everything” is hypocritical bullshit. It’s the same path that led Ken Starr’s investigation from a property deal in Arkansas to a mutually-consensual sex act in the White House. The point isn’t that the speeches had damning content. The point is that the demand that she release them was without merit. It was pertinent to an election where she was saying something to the electorate while she was saying the opposite to monied interests. > [@](#): > > Technically candidates don’t even have to release their tax returns; it’s just common practice these days. If Trump had simply refused to do so that would at least have been honest - the “I would but I can’t because A, er B, no I mean C” pretty much demonstrates that the demand for her speeches was a distraction, not a reason (and only a “cover” if you’re not paying attention). Do you know how political cover works? You don’t have to invoke the political cover for it to provide you with cover. His refusal to release his tax returns became more acceptable because of Hillary’s refusal to release her speeches. > [@](#): > > I’m not defending her behaviour. I’m pointing out that your argument is rubbish. > > I’m not making excuses for Clinton. I’m pointing out that the country is a much nastier place that people suspected. The nasty country that elected Barack Obama twice. THAT nasty country? > [@](#): > > Again - it was patently obvious that no matter how bad Clinton is, Trump is worse. And people still voted for him. Obvious to you and me but not to people who voted for Trump. Most of them would have voted for anyone with an R next to their name. The rest could have voted for a Democrat if that Democrat wasn’t Hillary. > [@](#): > > You seem to have a hard time understanding that throwing every criticism of Clinton into your post doesn’t actually constitute a coherent argument. Some of it is relevant. Some of it isn’t. And some of it is false. > > I know it’s popular to froth about Hillary and then accuse anyone who points out that you sound like a crazy person of “defending her”, but that’s really not what I’m doing here, so please try to keep up. Clinton did plenty wrong. But that doesn’t mean everything you want to pin on her is justified. What am I trying to pin on her? The only thing I am pinning on her is Donald Trump in the white house for 4 years. > [@](#): > > Yes she did. Maybe that’s what a lot of voters want now. Have you considered that? I did for a while until I remembered that our current president is black. > [@](#): > > You’re kind of obsessed about these speeches. People are saying. We’ve seen the contents of some of those speeches. > [@](#): > > Yes. And that was bad. And it’s still better than Trump’s practices. I must have missed it, So, how did Trump rig the primary again? > [@](#): > > We don’t know. He deleted them. Thousands of them. Do you have a cite that he deleted them? Did he do so with the same deliberateness as Hillary did? Were they under subpoena (or likely to become subpoenaed) when he did that? > [@](#): > > Yes, that’s exactly what I said, oh wait, no it wasn’t. No you didn’t say that, Hillary said that. > [@](#): > > I’ll tell you again: we don’t know. Because he deleted them. I am trying to find a cite that says that Colin Powell deleted emails. I’m having some trouble. can you help me out? > [@](#): > > Apparently not you. Although you certainly put a lot of effort into not giving a shit. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to write off a cheater. > [@](#): > > They would have run different campaigns, but all of them had flaws that Trump and the GOP would have hammered home. If Bernie had been the nominee we’d have heard nothing but “SOCIALIST!” for months on end which would have ended his chances with the majority of Americans in a heartbeat. Biden, while likable and experienced, was not a great campaigner or public speaker and had a history of verbal gaffes. Bloomberg was a party hopper. I would have enthusiastically supported Warren but I didn’t think she had enough experience (little did I realize that no one gives a fuck about experience anymore) and the Democrats couldn’t risk the Senate seat. Was Rendell even interested? And none of them could have done worse than Hillary. You make it sound like Trump was unbeatable or something. Is that what you are saying? That if Hillary couldn’t beat Trump, well, then NOONE could!!! > [@](#): > > Personally I was an O’Malley supporter but he didn’t make for exciting news coverage next to the Hillary and Bernie Show, and even he had major baggage. And he would have done better than Hillary once the nation realized that they had to choose between Trump and what’s behind door number 1. He was the only Mainstream Democrat that was willing to risk the eternal wrath of Hillary and throw his hat in the ring. > [@](#): > > Given that none of those people actually ran apart from Bernie (who despite the insistence that he was the people’s choice mainly won Democratic caucuses, not primaries, suggesting that just maybe the “democratic machinations” weren’t very effective) and a brief dalliance by Biden, it’s all a bit speculative. Her machinations kept them out of the primary. They worked just fine. > [@](#): > > So he’s not an unbeatable candidate; he’s a candidate who just happened to beat everyone. He was a clever enough candidate to outmaneuver all dozen-plus of his primary opponents but he was somehow too ineffectual to outmaneuver Clinton, who had to help him over the line. I guessing damning her with faint praise is fine as long as you’re still damning her. He beat the clown car full of Republicans because people like you and me (and the media) were kinds sorta rooting for him to win because we thought it would be hilarious and we were also worried that he may be the only candidate that Hillary could beat. The media just wanted ratings. > [@](#): > > Seriously? You don’t think society has changed in a reactionary direction? Have you read the news lately? You mean like MSNBC or FOX News? Forget the news. Show me facts and statistics. In the last decade or so, we have seen a black president; legalized gay marriage; an Indian governor in TWO southern states; a serious challenge by a socialist with a face made for radio and a voice made for print; a dawning realization that a female president isn’t a matter of “if” but “when”; I guess there are ways in which society has turned back the dial as well but America isn’t moving back to the 1950s, they just don’t like Hillary. > [@](#): > > I realize you’re grooving on your Two-Minute Hate here but while Clinton’s campaign was deeply flawed Trump’s message resonated with a disturbingly large percentage of the American population and it wasn’t Clinton who made that happen. The part of Trump’s message that resonated with the Trump voters I know was: Hillary is owned by large multinational corporations and wall street; I am financing my own campaign, I don’t need these guys. We have been making some horrible trade deals. We need to secure our borders from illegal immigrants and terrorists. Meanwhile Hillary is giving speeches to the Bank of Brazil talking about her desire for free trade and open borders. He also threw out a lot of bigotry and it bothered them too but not as much as the thought of handing over our country to a corporate shill. > [@](#): > > You mean you don’t **want** to blame anyone else. No, I’m saying that Trump is such a horrible candidate that if you lose to him, you suck. > [@](#): > > Translation: You don’t want to check some of your underlying assumptions about why Hillary lost and how electable she was to begin with, so you rail against anyone who contradicts you. > > I get it. It’s been hard for all of us to accept Trump’s win. And it’s easier to blame Clinton than to come to terms with the fact that a lot of Americans genuinely wanted to vote for the guy. Nope. Trump’s negatives were almost as high as Hilary’s… Almost. We didn’t give them a better option. You don’t think this was a “lesser of two evils” election for swing voters? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/188 "2016-12-01T18:47:17Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > The problem with the Democrats isn’t that they nominated Hillary. It’s that they assumed most Americans were as repulsed by Trump as they were. And if they don’t take the time to consider **why** Trump appealed to so many people - and figure out either how to co-opt it or counter it - they’ll lose the next few elections as well. What I’m worried about is the possibility that Democrats will decide they have to get down into the mud with the Republicans. They may figure _“We tried being better than the Republicans and they beat us. So now we need to try being worse than the Republicans. We’ll fight their underhanded tactics with our own underhanded tactics. We’ll tell bigger lies and encourage more fear than they do.”_ ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/189 "2016-12-01T18:55:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What I’m worried about is the possibility that Democrats will decide they have to get down into the mud with the Republicans. They may figure _“We tried being better than the Republicans and they beat us. So now we need to try being worse than the Republicans. We’ll fight their underhanded tactics with our own underhanded tactics. We’ll tell bigger lies and encourage more fear than they do.”_ What concerns me even more is that in doing that, they might win. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/190 "2016-12-01T19:30:49Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > What concerns me even more is that in doing that, they might win. Be Careful [What You Ask For](http://stuff.is-a-geek.net/random/Forums/DeportationsBegin.png). ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/191 "2016-12-01T19:43:53Z")
Your link would have less of an impact if it actually read like this [http://stuff.is-a-geek.net/random/Forums/DeportationsBegin.png](http://stuff.is-a-geek.net/random/Forums/DeportationsBegin.png) Ohh so officially. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963/192 "2016-12-01T20:54:51Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Your link would have less of an impact if it actually read like this [http://stuff.is-a-geek.net/random/Forums/DeportationsBegin.png](http://stuff.is-a-geek.net/random/Forums/DeportationsBegin.png) > > Ohh so officially. :dubious: What, you are questioning the veracity of the Boston Globe now? Just because it’s a future issue doesn’t mean that it didn’t will have happened. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-racist-trump-voters-wondering-why-theyre-getting-shit-about-racism/771963.md?page=9)