Tuesday, 15 November 2016

A note on the gloating

Since Trump won the election, I've seen a pattern emerging among people unhappy with the result. 

People like Cenk Uygur, who posted a video entitled "Trump IMMEDIATELY backpedals on the wall and more..." and people like Thunderf00t, who seemed to be tickled pink that Trump has already gone back on the promises that got him elected. Similar commentary is all through the comments sections of these videos, as well.

It's like this bizarre pointing and laughing. "Ahahaha, you dumb hicks got conned! He isn't building a wall now! He's building a fence! BOOM!! And he said now he's not getting rid of everything in Obamacare! Boy, don't you feel like a dummy now?"

This seems incredibly bizarre to me, considering all the fear mongering coming from these same types of people leading up to the election regarding many of Trump's promises. The entire argument back then seemed to be, "what if he gets in? He's gonna do everything he says, and then we're all screwed!" You'd think these same people would be.... well, happy that he's tempering some of these promises now that he's in office. I know I am.

So here's one gloating comment in a thread over on Cenk's video:


Here's the "Red Pill"
1 Not even a week has passed and the Wall is now partially a fence 2 Mass deportation of ALL illegals is now just the criminals 3 Key parts of Obamacare will be kept, Pre-existing and Young adults living with their parents 4 Gay marriage is here to stay 5 Roe V Wade will be a State issue, not Federal 6 A ban of all Muslims entering the Country has literally disappeared off the Trump campaign website 7 Cannabis is now legal is several more states It will be entertaining to see how far down the rabbit hole Trump's red pill takes us cause one thing sure ain't happening anytime soon, the Tea Party wont be getting their country back, lol


Is this what people believe Trump supporters are like? That we're going to be throwing tantrums over this stuff because we're all a bunch of sexist, racist, bigoted, low-IQ, inbred dumbfucks?


The entire tone of comments like these is, "haha, you idiots are gonna be outraged by these 7 things! It's gonna be so sweet to see all your butthurt!"

Here's how they expected Trump supporters to react:



And the hilarious thing is, when you actually tell them you're not outraged, or even annoyed, by any of the above, they seem to find it completely impossible to believe.

So I'm going to recreate my response to the quoted comment above, and expand a little on it here.


1) The Wall:


If he promised us a shiny red wall, and some expert on birds said it would fuck with their migration patterns so he opted for a different color, I'm not going to start screaming, "He promised me a RED WALL! Not a GREEN WALL! That liar went back on his promise!"

If a system of fences can get the same job done, better, for less money, and be built quicker, why would anyone who voted for him complain? I would expect we'd be pleased that he's not only willing to be flexible in terms of prioritizing function over form, but that he values taxpayer dollars enough not to waste them on a vanity project.

There were always problems with the idea of a wall spanning the entire border, including but not limited to dealing with water ways and run-off from rainfall, and animal migration patterns.

Some have pointed out that Hillary's answer to the border problem was a fence, and now Trump's solution is probably going to look more like Hillary's fence than a "big beautiful wall." I will deal with that when addressing the second point. 2) The Illegals:

First off, some would argue that being in the country illegally makes you a criminal.

However, I'm sure that's not what he meant. But even if he only wants to "mass deport" illegals who commit crimes other than entering illegally, that's a good start. Shouldn't these types of illegals be the first priority?

It also doesn't mean other large scale deportations won't end up happening at some point, or that there won't be ongoing deportations of otherwise law-abiding illegals while the "mass deportations" of "criminal illegals" is being carried out.

A mass deportation would be a targeted program of finding and rounding people up, and then booting them.

Unless he's going to grant amnesty, "noncriminal" illegals not targeted can still be deported on an case by case basis as they are discovered, no special action required. "The police have instituted a special program of dedicated officers aimed at clamping down on street racing," does not translate to, "The police have stopped handing out speeding tickets to commuters on the freeway." Regardless, even if he allowed otherwise law-abiding illegals to stay and seek citizenship, so long as they weren't rushed to the front of the line ahead of the people doing it the proper way, I wouldn't be unhappy.

The main problem with illegals is that their status is illegal. The fact that they're illegal means they're easily exploited by employers who can pay them less than they'd have to pay citizens, which in turn drives all wages down. Illegal status leaves workers vulnerable to poor workplace health and safety standards, because they're unable to complain to authorities without fear of being deported. A large population of people with illegal status isn't good for anyone, including, in some ways especially, illegals themselves.

As for Hillary's fence, and now Trump's fence/wall, again, it's less about form and more about function. Trump has addressed the current policy of "catch and release" as inadequate. It's one of the reasons border guards supported him--they're sick of having to deal with the same people over and over, trying to get in. You catch them, kick them back out, and next week, you do it again, and then again. Until they get smart enough to not get caught just once, and then your border (wall or fence) has failed to perform its function.

I saw nothing from Hillary about changing "catch and release" to "catch and incarcerate". And I saw nothing in the 60 Minutes interview with Trump that indicated he'd changed his general stance on illegals. Just that the first order of business would be to get rid of the illegals who are engaged in crime on American soil. He clearly said that once that's done, and the border is secure, then he'd make a determination as to what to do about the otherwise law-abiding illegals living on American soil.

This seems entirely sensible to me. 3) Obamacare:

So basically, he's keeping the good parts of Obamacare, that are most likely to help working class Americans, the very people he claimed to champion throughout his campaign. The horror!

Why the criticism? Because he should have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, just like he said he would.

You do realize that most Republican objection to Obamacare isn't about mandating that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, but about the 20,000 pages of regulations that go along with the legislation, right? There are doctors who voted for Trump because the 20,000 pages of regulations that were not embodied in the bill itself but arrived in the mail a week later are insanely costly and onerous. Every goddamn clinic needs its own personal Rainman just to make sure the paperwork is filed correctly, ffs. Trump never said he would get rid of universal or affordable health care. He said he would get rid of Obamacare and replace it with a system that worked. It would be absolutely ridiculous to think that there isn't a single thing about Obamacare that isn't good or can't be made to work.

This is kind of like gloating, "Obamacare covered broken bones, and now Trump's health plan is also covering broken bones. He totally went back on his promise to get rid of Obamacare, because they both cover broken bones! Take that!"

Why would working class Americans be upset with this? Libertarians might, but libertarians aren't the only people who voted for Trump, either.

This point just smacks of an assumption that Trump was going to rip up Obamacare for no other reason than to stick it to the darkie president, and that this was the entire reason anyone supported Trump's promises of health care reform. 4) Same Sex Marriage:

Trump's primary objection to the SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision was always that he believed it was an issue for the individual states to decide. This was why he disagreed with the decision, but I've never heard him come out and promise that he'd try to overturn it.

And if he did ever manage to have that decision overturned or repealed, it would fall back to individual states to decide on the issue. It would not mean a blanket US ban on same-sex marriage. States would continue to adopt same-sex marriage, one at a time, as had already been happening, slowly but surely. Also, since 2000, he's supported legal unions that would grant same sex couples all the same rights and privileges of married couples (without the word "marriage"), and again in 2000 he supported including LGBTQ status in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, something that didn't happen until 2015. And again in 2000 he stated that if he ever made a run at the presidency, he'd have no problem appointing LGBT people to his cabinet. Also, in 2015, Pence pissed off a huge number of evangelicals in his state and elsewhere by taking guidance from business leaders and LGBTQ rights groups and changing the language in the Religious Freedom Reform Act he'd recently signed that would allow businesses to discriminate against gays. Pence lost a ton of his base support for acting to prevent legal discrimination against gays. Oh, and then there was that moment when Trump got a huge audience of Republicans listening to his RNC acceptance speech, to cheer and applaud him for pledging to support and protect the rights and the safety of LGBTQ Americans. I'm pretty sure some Trump supporters (evangelicals and similar) might be pissed about this, but I'm certainly not. Nor was I offended by Trump's suggestion that the same-sex marriage question really should have been an issue of states' rights. Arguably, it should have been.

Nothing I've seen from Trump indicates to me that he's a homophobe. And while Pence might be, he's demonstrated himself willing to put his duty as an elected representative (which means representing all your constituents, not just those who voted for you, and not just those who are most likely to give you money, and not just those with whom you most agree) ahead of his personal feelings. 5) Roe v Wade:

I don't know how this will be managed, given we're talking about a SCOTUS decision. Neither Congress nor the POTUS has the power to overturn a SCOTUS decision. There are only two ways to do it--through a Constitutional amendment, which requires the support of 3/4 of the state legislatures, or through SCOTUS overruling its prior decision. That requires an individual or group to bring a federal case, have that federal case accepted by the court, and then win it.

Previous attempts at overturning Roe v Wade have largely failed because of SCOTUS's heavy reliance on precedent. Deeply pro-life Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has twice voted against quashing Roe v Wade based on the bench's staunch adherence to precedent. Granted, Roe v Wade seems like a shaky decision, with not much substance and a lot of legal gymnastics to it. I actually think there are better and more substantive arguments in favor of abortion rights (bodily autonomy, bans on forcible servitude) that could be made before a court than the one (privacy) that formed the basis of Roe v Wade. Regardless, even with a majority of conservative judges, or even a majority of pro-life judges, on the bench, it's not guaranteed.

And it would take more than overturning Roe v Wade to make abortion illegal across the US. States that want it would keep it, states that don't wouldn't, and until an argument is made and affirmed by SCOTUS that abortion in and of itself is in violation of the Constitution, the worst that will happen is that a woman's right to abortion will be upheld in some states and vitiated in others. 6) Muslims:

Meh. You're talking to a horrible, awful, no good, really bad "Islam apologist" here. Despite this, Islamic terrorism is a worry for me, as it is for many of the moderate Muslims I know here in Canada. Perhaps tightening immigration rules (or even just enforcing the ones the US has already) would help more than a blanket ban.

Again, it will probably piss off some of the people who voted for him, but backpedalling on a blanket ban doesn't bother me, and I suspect it doesn't bother a lot of other people who supported Trump (including the Muslims who've told me they voted for him).

Is Trump backpedalling on his stance that the refugee targets set by Clinton are way too high? Not that I've seen. Has he suggested that he's no longer worried about ISIS's promises to sneak operatives into the west among legitimate refugees? Not that I've seen.

Were all the anti-Trump Muslim American citizens who were, with the help of their "white guilt" allies, whipping everyone into a frenzy of Chicken Littling prior to the election HAPPY with this turn of events? Relieved?

Hard to say, given how the response to this softening of his attitude is more about savoring the predicted outpouring of salt from all 59.6 million rabid, irredeemable Islamaphobes who voted Trump, an outpouring that has failed to substantially materialize as yet.

"U mad, bro?"

"Not particularly."

"Hahahahahaha! Your butthurt is so delicious! Your anus is so stretched right now! How does it feel to be betrayed by that bigot you voted for??!!!"

"Um.... well, firstly, I never thought he was a bigot. I wouldn't vote for someone I thought was a bigot. And second, I don't feel betrayed. It's not like he was calling for a perma-ban on Muslims entering the country during his campaign. He said, 'until we know what the hell is going on'. I really don't think he's stopped being concerned with Islamic terrorism. But I have Muslim friends who are decent people, and it's not like I wanted them deported, or whatever."

"OMG, the salt! THE SALT! You're great leader has gone back on his promises! All you Islamaphobes are so butthurt, it's glorious!"

"Dude, what are you even talking about?"

"Cry some more, Islamaphobe!"

"Sigh."

These people are too busy gloating to even consider the possibility that Trump might not be an Islamaphobe, and neither are many of his supporters.

You'd think they'd be happy, but they can't seem to let go of their preconceptions of Trump and his supporters long enough to actually wonder if they might have been wrong about us.
 7) Cannabis:

And how is this a problem? Was a "war against cannabis" a big thing in Trump's campaign? If so, I must have missed it. Also, shouldn't that be appropriately considered a states' rights issue? 


Trump has consistently supported states's rights. You can see it in his primary objection to the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, which he thought should be an issue of states' rights. You can even see it in his objection to Roe v Wade, which he came out and said that if it was overturned, it would be a states' rights issue. 


Why would he see legalizing or decriminalizing cannabis as something that DOESN'T fall under the umbrella of states' rights?


The libertarians who supported Trump would support this, given most see individual rights as paramount, the war on drugs as a waste of taxpayer money that only consolidates power centrally, and mass incarceration for non-violent, victimless crimes to be in violation of their principles. 


I doubt Tea Partiers, even if they're anti-cannabis, care very much one way or the other. If it will shrink centralized government and lower taxes, even the most anti-drug faction of the Tea Party would probably be willing to hold its nose and focus instead on the silver lining. 


And half the "alt-right" internet "bigots and haters" who post dank Hitler memes and worship at the altar of Pepe when they aren't surfing 4chan are probably knee deep in reefer themselves. I'm sure they're outraged by the idea of one day being able to get a joint at the 7/11. They sell Mountain Dew and Doritos there too. One stop shopping, yo.


But yes, everyone who supported Trump is butthurt because some states put cannabis on the ballot, and now it's legal in more parts of the country than ever?


I mean, what the everloving? 


Are you people so obsessed with partisanship that you can't conceive that any person who would prefer Trump to Hillary might actually agree with you on anything? 


"HuffPo fucking TOLD you that Trump wanted to mass murder kittens! And you VOTED for him, which obviously means you wanted to see kittens die by the millions! And now he's backpedalled on his totally 100% accurately reported kitten murder campaign promise! U mad, bro? How does it feel to be betrayed by the monster you voted for, you kitten hating monster???!!!"


"Well... uh... when did Trump mention kittens? I must have missed that. Anyway, I feel pretty good about what he's said he's going to focus on since he got elected."


"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Cry some more, bigot!!!!! Your great leader was less of a bigot than you thought he was, and now he's betraying you!!!!!!!!! Wait, I didn't mean that quite the way it came out. Your great leader was less of a bigot than I thoug... wait no, that's still not right... hmmm.... Your great leader is still a total bigot, but THE WALL!!!! Hahahahahaha! You're not getting your wall!!!!!! Oh, the butthurt! The SALT!!!! So tasty! You got screwed!!!!!!"


You know. For someone who apparently got screwed, the butthurt has never felt so good.



EDITED TO ADD: My apologies about the bizarre paragraph breaks and font changes. I have tried 5 times to repair the wonky formatting, and all blogger wants to do is replicate the blog post every time I try to correct, without implementing the corrections. 

15 comments:

  1. "Is this what people believe Trump supporters are like? That we're going to be throwing tantrums over this stuff because we're all a bunch of sexist, racist, bigoted, low-IQ, inbred dumbfucks?"
    Yes.
    Do you really think you are a typical Trump supporter? You are not.
    Basically, Trump is a liar. Here's the typical thinking of those who voted for him: "I'm sick and tired of elite candidates telling me exactly what I want to hear and then not following through on their promises. That's why I'm voting for this elite candidate who is telling me exactly what I want to hear."
    Oh, the delicious Schadenfreude.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I read the quotes with a Thunderf00t's voice, he did the same when talking post-brexit, i love the guy, but he tends to do that.
    Great post, i was thinking the same :D, but im bad with words :D

    ReplyDelete

  3. What we learned in 2016:

    1. 'Racism' really means 'I hate White people'. 'Racism' just means you're anti-White.

    2. Diversity means everyone MUST think alike about 'diversity'.

    3. Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for Everyone IS White Genocide.

    4. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of White people's money.

    5. Polls don't assess public opinion, BUT rather coerce and direct public opinion.

    6. Virtue signalling is no virtue. It's theft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nailed it.

      This Trump supporter is good with him adjusting his positions as he discovers points that are unworkable, wrong, or just need a different approach. One of his strengths is that he's not hung up on dogma, or on being inflexible about everything.

      And I don't expect it all to happen overnight. In fact, fix the economy (mainly by way of America-first trade agreements and reducing regulatory overreach) and immigration, and by the time he gets to other problems, a lot of them will have gone away all by themselves, since they're direct results of the above.

      Also, fuck blogspot, which only lets me post using *ick* Chrome.

      Delete
  4. Create a new post. Copy and paste the text from this one into Notepad, then select all, recopy from there and paste into the new post (that way all you'll have is the basic ASCII). Then add paragraph breaks if necessary.

    Alternatively, edit in HTML mode, deleting all the SPAN tags and other unwanted formatting.

    Alternatively, tell your readers they're lucky to get a post at all and to quit whining about the colour.

    You appear to have a higher opinion of Trump than I do, but neither of us are estadounidenses, so arguing about it would be a bit pointless.

    On a lighter note, have you read Jacqueline Rose in the Grauniad today? I'd never even heard of her but apparently she's a world-class expert on masculinity. She also seems to like the word "crass" rather a lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Update: blogged on said Rose. Feel free.

      http://humandugong.blogspot.com/2016/11/on-not-quite-getting-it.html

      Delete
  5. A bill for the "wall"/fence was passed 10 years ago: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/s262
    (Guess who voted in favor of that one.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, Karen, for thinking, writing, and presenting your POV. While in no way a Trump fan (I didn't vote for him or Hillary, but I did vote) the outcome of the election was not predicated upon my own particular preference. As such, I have been seeking out logical, well written, humorous and instructive perspectives on how to move forward with grace and humility while staying true to my own beliefs and understanding. The name calling and snarkiness (while A-ok philosophically in my opinion) is not an argument or plan for improvement. I don't mind if someone calls me a dumb-ass if they can politely and logically explain why I qualify as such. I have read several of your posts (and watched some youtube) on many different topics and I appreciate your art and voice (even when I disagree) and am thankful that you have the wisdom, knowledge and boldness to speak another perspective into the media hype I keep seeing. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think my main objection comes from the rhetoric of certain Trump supporters that are off the charts such as Alison Teiman's recent allusion that "There weren't *enough* crusades or Janet Bloomfield's insistence that there's no such thing as Marital Rape. Myself and a few others can testify to a hotbed of racism and veritable misogyny rampant within the MRM. Many, including Dean Esmay - one of the leading lights of the movement until recently, have moved on to saner ground. But, I digress.

    A couple of things regarding your points in the above post:

    1) Taking a claim completely off a website would in the minds of most reasonable people seem to signal a bit of embarrassment over the matter. It could be because Trump said a lot of things to play to his base, but that just further highlights the gullibility of some on the right. Because you yourself don't seem surprised is not a reason that others aren't, or that there's disappointment afoot. The recent Trump protests have probably upstaged any outrage expressed by his supporters, so it's really hard to tell.

    2) The real reason that Trump's supporters are probably gullible is that he uses examples that are 5 or more years out of date. I would say the US doesn't have an Immigration Problem. (Compared to Europe right now, it doesn't seem to be more than a drop in the bucket.) There's a strong trend towards leaving the US from across it's Southern Border in recent years. A simple Google search will verify this.

    My point is that Trump used a lot of "dog whistle" memes such as "they're taking our jobs" to play to an angry, feeling powerless & dispossessed base. Whether he did it to play to his base while having other motivations is possible, but ultimately irrelevant. The point is, smart people knew better than to fall for that BS.

    2) You're actually wrong about Congress' authority to overturn a SCOTUS decision:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

    Congress can actually strip the courts of the jurisdiction to rule on certain legal issues. In fact, Ron Paul had a bill he introduced that would do exactly that - pull the teeth of Roe v Wade and send the issue back to the states by restricting the right of Federal Courts to rule on abortion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One other point related to 1) that I neglected to touch on: Trump's earlier promise to Universal Healthcare was dropped with no explanation, and on that topic his website had a brief list of all the GOP talking points about "Free Market" solutions to fixing the system. I happen to agree with Ha Joon Chang that there is no "Free Market," but that's neither here nor there. Carefully watching Trump over the last 18 months would signal someone who's more than a bit volatile, especially when taken with some of his comments and responses. If he's not really like that underneath it all, then great. But it's still appalling how many people didn't seem to do their homework re some of Trump's claim & veritable flip-flops. His supporters seemed to be reacting on emotion more than anything else.

      Delete
  8. http://www.alternet.org/human-rights/george-takei-slams-trump-surrogates-invoking-japanese-internment-camps-trumps-own-words

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello!

    Do you seek funds to pay off credits and debts? Do you find yourself in a bit of trouble with unpaid bills and don’t know which way to go or where to turn? What about finding a reputable Debt Consolidation firm that can assist you in reducing monthly installment so that you will have affordable repayment options as well as room to breathe when it comes to the end of the month and bills need to get paid? Navaro Loan Company is the answer. Email (Navaroloancompany@yahoo.com)

    We offer the following types of loans

    *Debt Consolidation Loans
    *Business Loans
    *Personal Loans
    *Home Loans
    *Car Finance
    *Commercial Loans
    *Investments Loans
    *E.T.C

    Note: we do not ask for upfront fees, We give you loan with a low interest rate of 2% and loan duration of 1 to 40 years to pay back the loan (secure and unsecure). Do not keep your financial problems to yourself in order for you not to be debt master or financial stress up, which is why you must contact us quickly for a solution to your financial problems. It will be a great joy to us when you are financially stable. Email {Navaroloancompany@yahoo.com}


    Note: We do not ask for upfront fees ones you qualify you get your loan.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Previous attempts at overturning Roe v Wade have largely failed because of SCOTUS's heavy reliance on precedent. Deeply pro-life Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has twice voted against quashing Roe v Wade based on the bench's staunch adherence to precedent"

    I don't think you can show evidence that Kennedy was/is ever "deeply pro-life." That description is more appropriate for Thomas or Scalia, based on the consistency of their voting record. The very fact that Kennedy put Precedence over the Right to Life means he valued the former over the latter.

    "Granted, Roe v Wade seems like a shaky decision, with not much substance and a lot of legal gymnastics to it. I actually think there are better and more substantive arguments in favor of abortion rights (bodily autonomy, bans on forcible servitude) that could be made before a court than the one (privacy) that formed the basis of Roe v Wade"

    Interesting. Requiring a woman carry her baby to term is "slavery?" That was the same believe the LatinoJustice PRLDEF that Justice Sotomayor used to work for. I saw a modicum of her Confirmation hearings and she was asked if she really believed that. Never heard what the answer was, but it's clear that's the view of most mainstream Feminism.

    So in terms of the Old Quakers, what sayest thou Karen? How is it supporting Men's interests if women have such a unilateral right to terminate a pregnancy with his child?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hank you for some other informative blog.Please click on this post if you wanna paly with online casino.Thank you.
    sbobet
    baccarat
    online baccarat

    ReplyDelete

Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!