Trump won the white working-man vote..

[Brian37]

Can't you both just kiss and make up?

This right here completely misses the point , and is why "No" is my answer.

[KUSA]

Can't you both just kiss and make up?

Would you join us?

[A Theist]

Then again, Brian opens himself up to stuff like that when he acts like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. He doesn't handle disagreement well at all.

Before you accuse me, the individual of "throwing a temper tantrum" why don't you spend time LISTENING to LGBT and blacks and Hispanics and women whom have been affected by the right wing vile rhetoric. You can make this about me all the fuck you want. But our right wing has not only made a mess of the economy and held it hostage for 36 years, but on top of that have normalized racism and xenophobia and sexism. A "fuck you" to to bullies is not the same as being a bully.

No, I don't handle assholes well. 

A disagreement is

"Maybe we should take this route to get here"

"No, we should go this way, and it will be shorter".

Demagoguery is

"FEAR THAT OTHER PERSON"

"Why"

"Because BECAUSE" Not having any valid reason other than they fear change. 

I can most certainly handle disagreement. But to equate someone treating an asshole bigot with a "FUCK OFF" isn't throwing a temper tantrum, IT'S MORAL DUMBFUCK.

I will show Trump and Pence and the GOP with the same level of value they showed Obama, which was NONE. I will NOT coddle the insecurities of bigots and assholes.

I guess a bro hug is out of the question, then.

[KUSA]

Can't you both just kiss and make up?

This right here completely misses the point , and is why "No" is my answer.

I agree. You are to obnoxious to get along with.

[Mister Agenda]

I can only go by what you post. You seem to really like posting about how racist Trump voters are, despite not caring whether they're right or not.

Right about what?  

Right about some other thing?  Sure, why not.  In addition to being able to be good people, loved by friends and family, and racist...they can also be right about something.  Why on earth is that even a question?

Who knows or cares? I was just responding to your words: " It simply doesn't -matter- to me whether I'm right, or the racists are right."

Given this kind of a start, I don't think I'll bother to read the rest of your post.

[Mister Agenda]

The not Trump side. Are you sure you don't have a side?

I'm on the side of calling a spade a spade.  Neither Dems or Repubs seem to like that right now.

Just how many of these Trump voters do you think are reachable?  How many people that fell for his bullshit do you think you can you reason with?  Just look at this board.  People pointed out all of the false narratives Trump was spinning, and his supporters didn't care.  They just ignored it or tried to twist it.

From polls on their attitudes, I'd say about half. The ones who aren't convinced Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya, mainly.

Flipping a sufficient number of votes will do shit.

Yes, that is what I said.  That's also why Dems should be more concerned about finding a viable candidate than holding the hands of people that voted for an obvious bigot.

You said flipping votes wouldn't do shit. I've italicized the operative word in my quote above to make my meaning clearer.

Can you walk me through the math in which flipping a sufficient number of votes doesn't change the outcome of the election? And how finding a viable candidate is not part of a strategy that includes flipping some votes?

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ran on emphasizing what unifies this country. Clinton and Trump focused on what divides us...and that's a game Trump won, because it's his game.

And there's a middle ground between 'hold their hands' and 'ignore their concerns'.

[Mister Agenda]

Anyone that votes for a man that called for a national registry of Muslims needs to understand that they are now an accomplice to hatred and bigotry whether it hurts their feelings or not.

Kind of macabre that we find ourselvs in this situation, really.  We're sitting here discussing our bigoted president and the people who -made- him president, worrying about their feelings.  

Well, it isn't their  feelings I'd worry about............

I haven't been worried about the sensitivities of bigoted racists, I've been worried about the left making the same mistake the right made after the 2012 election, which helped bring us to this point. The practical republicans autopsied the election and figured out what they did wrong and how they could correct it; but didn't realize their base wouldn't go along with it, and would in fact double down.

The Democrats could field a wonderful candidate with the potential to draw votes from people who held their noses to vote for Trump, only to see their candidate undermined by millions of angry Democrats who don't actually want former Trump voters to vote Democrat, ironically handing the White House back to Pence (who I expect will be president by 2020).

Resisting the regime involves shielding the people targeted by it. It also involves winning the next two elections. Staying the course when you're losing is stupid; it's time for the Dems to go back to what works for them: a charismatic and qualified candidate with a unifying message; but I wonder if that can succeed if too many of that candidate's supposed supporters send the message that they prefer disunity, and reconciliation is right out.

[Mister Agenda]

No, it doesn't sound ignorant because the same sentiment is behind it. Regardless if someone hates muslims, jews, Mexicans or cyclists. It's always the same primitive instinct of hating the other. That's not a pet peeve -pardon my french - that's mirror jerking over semantics.

And as I've repeated 3 times now, I do think it's just as wrong to discriminate based on religious beliefs as it is to discriminate based on race. The fact that I'm pointing out that Muslim is a religion, does not diminish how wrong it is to discriminate against them. My sentiments are the same as yours. 

Holy moly.   

As for whether or not it sounds ignorant to refer to a religious belief as a race, well we'll just have to disagree on that.

I can see why you're confused by the response you're getting. Some atheists here have gone on rants about how Islam isn't a race, so it's not a theist/atheist thing.

The issues with pointing out that nuance are that it sounds like a 'yes, but...'. "Police shouldn't be shooting so many black people." "Yes, but if they weren't breaking the law, police wouldn't shoot them." The other issue that comes to mind is that disentangling race from religion isn't so simple. Sure, there are Muslims of all races; but in the minds of many (if not most) anti-Muslim bigots, their dislike is tangled up with their mental image of a brown person/foreigner/not-as-white-as-me other. By focusing on the religion, it gives racists cover to hate people of color without being called on their racism.

Ordinarily, I'm all for semantic quibbling; but people who associate anti-Muslim bigotry with racism are not really wrong, even though literal racism might not be involved for some people who dislike Muslims, and it's highly unlikely that they actually don't know Muslim isn't really a race.

Not trying to beat up on you, just trying to provide some perspective.

[Mister Agenda]

Racial apathy is the new racial antipathy.  It's been the Gentleman's Racism for a few decades now.   It's the driving force behind:
"I'm not a racist" -I just vote for racists alot.
"I wanted the economic promise stuff" - I don't care enough about the other stuff for me to withhold my support.
and the fun new wrinkle;
"The other guy was worse than racism" -How bad is racism anyway, isn't it, like, over since Obama?

I can play the translation game, too: Racial apathy is the new racial antipathy.

If you're unmotivated to be a champion for minorities, you're no different from a Nazi.

And that's how Nazis get normalized.

[Mister Agenda]

@abaris
The racial apathy vote, no less, lol.   Not racist though, never racist, anything but racist. Whomever uses the word racist is as bad as a racist.  Hell, they're probably racists.  

Italics mine. You seem to recognize the dangers of casting too wide a net when considering people racists, but don't seem to be able to acknowledge that your net may be too expansive as well. Our problem is not that not enough people are labeled racists. The problem at least partly involves so many people being called racists that people who would previously have been offended by it see it as 'political correctness run amok' and are shrugging it off with more ease than ever. The more people who are called racists, the fewer people who care. Making sure everyone who voted for Trump knows you think they're all racist doesn't accomplish a damn thing to make the situation better.

We don't want people who today would rather not be considered racists to get comfortable with being called that, do we? Serious question, it's a predictable outcome, is it the desired outcome? Maybe Trump won the election because people didn't apply the racist label liberally enough.