Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?

[Boiler 45,651]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-voters-motivated-racism-may-be-violating-constitution-can-they-ncna1110356

 

Quote

Trump's unprecedented, compulsive, easily documented lying during the 2016 campaign made him an irrational choice. It's reasonable to conclude that voters were willing to swallow the falsehoods because they liked what they heard: overt racist appeals and incessant lies about rising crime rates. Research has since suggested that plenty of Trump voters were indeed strongly motivated by racist resentment and anti-immigrant animus.

Quote

It's difficult to address injustice, however, if you're unwilling to say injustice exists. Politicians and pundits, Republican and Democratic alike, have been unwilling to reprimand voters or hold them accountable. But voters are not well-intentioned innocents who are helplessly manipulated by malevolent leaders. They make important decisions as constitutional actors, for which they have moral responsibility. Racist voting isn't an accident. It's a choice that may violate the principles of our Constitution and our legal system. We should say so, and then we should find ways to reduce the harm it causes

So how should we censure voters who do not vote for approved candidates.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   I thought that was a swing and miss article. Voters hold politicians accountable, not the other way around. You can't prevent individual voters from using race as a factor if that is what they want to do. Kind of stupid to pretend it only comes down to that 1 criteria though.

 

  If I was running for office and I felt my opponent was using racism (or probably more accurate to say race) to appeal to a certain group of constituents, all I can do is the opposite. All things being equal, if that isn't enough to win, then it means race may be an important issue to those constituents, and not one that can be ignored. However it is important not to jump to the conclusion that all things are equal. Pretending race is not a factor for anyone is silly. Pretending it's the only factor is just as naive. Rather than saying race was the big issue, maybe I have to consider losing means I have other shortcomings that I could not overcome.

 

   I think politicians are missing something nowadays, and it applies to any competition. The "loser" of an event has to address their own deficits and shortcomings before they start focusing on what the "winner" did. When you lose, you have to accept blame yourself first. You didn't do enough. Regardless of what the winner may have done wrong, they did enough to win. The loser can't set out with the goal of making the winner worse. They have to realize why they lost and then make themselves better first. If not the result won't change. 

 

  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

The rules don't help me win with my own criteria therefore people are racist and the only non racist thing to do is get rid of the Electoral College.

 

Also it was invented by white people and as we know they are racist especially in the late 18th century therefore anything they did I disagree with is invalid.

[Dashinka 24,579]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I thought that was a swing and miss article. Voters hold politicians accountable, not the other way around. You can't prevent individual voters from using race as a factor if that is what they want to do. Kind of stupid to pretend it only comes down to that 1 criteria though.

 

  If I was running for office and I felt my opponent was using racism (or probably more accurate to say race) to appeal to a certain group of constituents, all I can do is the opposite. All things being equal, if that isn't enough to win, then it means race may be an important issue to those constituents, and not one that can be ignored. However it is important not to jump to the conclusion that all things are equal. Pretending race is not a factor for anyone is silly. Pretending it's the only factor is just as naive. Rather than saying race was the big issue, maybe I have to consider losing means I have other shortcomings that I could not overcome.

 

   I think politicians are missing something nowadays, and it applies to any competition. The "loser" of an event has to address their own deficits and shortcomings before they start focusing on what the "winner" did. When you lose, you have to accept blame yourself first. You didn't do enough. Regardless of what the winner may have done wrong, they did enough to win. The loser can't set out with the goal of making the winner worse. They have to realize why they lost and then make themselves better first. If not the result won't change. 

 

  

That is becoming pie in the sky now days.  Heck, we are still seeing many folks on one side not accepting the results of 2016.  Schiff, much like the theme of the posted article, posited that we cannot leave the question of President Trump up to the voters in November.  To me, this is the scariest part of the current circus going on in DC, the thought that voters cannot be trusted.  We have a complete and total conspiracy theorist running a prosecution of an impeachment trial that itself was completely partisan, and Mr. Schiff and his team of House managers seem to really take the “wash, rinse, repeat” to heart.

[Boiler 45,651]

Well when the voters can't be trusted to vote correctly what do you do?

[Dashinka 24,579]

13 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Well when the voters can't be trusted to vote correctly what do you do?

Communism?

[Boiler 45,651]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Communism?

Authoritarian anyway.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is becoming pie in the sky now days.  Heck, we are still seeing many folks on one side not accepting the results of 2016.  Schiff, much like the theme of the posted article, posited that we cannot leave the question of President Trump up to the voters in November.  To me, this is the scariest part of the current circus going on in DC, the thought that voters cannot be trusted.  We have a complete and total conspiracy theorist running a prosecution of an impeachment trial that itself was completely partisan, and Mr. Schiff and his team of House managers seem to really take the “wash, rinse, repeat” to heart.

 

  I noticed it during Obama's 2012 campaign. The Republicans basically rolled out the same platform as 2008 and hoped for something different. Like it's magically going to work the second time around. Now it looks like the Democrat's are doing the same.

 

  I think that was the opening Trump saw in 2016. Before he turned the world upside down, he turned the Republican party upside down. The Democrats need someone to do the same, but I'm not sure that person exists at the moment. Looks like a lot of same old right now, and that probably won't get it done. 

[Boiler 45,651]

Those familiar with the UK recent election will note similarities.

[Dashinka 24,579]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I noticed it during Obama's 2012 campaign. The Republicans basically rolled out the same platform as 2008 and hoped for something different. Like it's magically going to work the second time around. Now it looks like the Democrat's are doing the same.

 

  I think that was the opening Trump saw in 2016. Before he turned the world upside down, he turned the Republican party upside down. The Democrats need someone to do the same, but I'm not sure that person exists at the moment. Looks like a lot of same old right now, and that probably won't get it done. 

I agreed, in 2012 the GOP essentially brought out another McCain like candidate in Romney, and the Dems are doing the same thing here.  More than likely it will come down to Biden and Sanders, and the Democrat establishment will not allow Bernie to win (I admit Bloomberg is a wildcard, but will Dems vote for a billionaire buying an election).  Now I know this will get tagged as whatboutism, but in 2008, and 2012, I do not remember a huge outcry over the election results or any questions regarding acceptance.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agreed, in 2012 the GOP essentially brought out another McCain like candidate in Romney, and the Dems are doing the same thing here.  More than likely it will come down to Biden and Sanders, and the Democrat establishment will not allow Bernie to win (I admit Bloomberg is a wildcard, but will Dems vote for a billionaire buying an election).  Now I know this will get tagged as whatboutism, but in 2008, and 2012, I do not remember a huge outcry over the election results or any questions regarding acceptance.

What I'm most amazed by is the Republican/conservative apathy toward how Ron Paul was black-holed by the media, the RNC, and so on, which was actually a repeat of 2008, but on a more obvious scale. It was then when I really started to notice how serious MSM manipulation of elections was. (this one was done across the media, but most importantly in this circumstance, FOX)

 

When Jon Stewart gets outraged and defends a Republican, you know something is awry:

 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agreed, in 2012 the GOP essentially brought out another McCain like candidate in Romney, and the Dems are doing the same thing here.  More than likely it will come down to Biden and Sanders, and the Democrat establishment will not allow Bernie to win (I admit Bloomberg is a wildcard, but will Dems vote for a billionaire buying an election).  Now I know this will get tagged as whatboutism, but in 2008, and 2012, I do not remember a huge outcry over the election results or any questions regarding acceptance.

Most of the Non-MSM I am reading, watching, and listening to have basically said that the race has already narrowed down to Biden and Sanders. The rest of the pack is in the race for pride purposes now except for Bloomburg. There are people openly speculating that Bloomberg might take over Biden's spot once he drops out for mental reasons. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Most of the Non-MSM I am reading, watching, and listening to have basically said that the race has already narrowed down to Biden and Sanders. The rest of the pack is in the race for pride purposes now except for Bloomburg. There are people openly speculating that Bloomberg might take over Biden's spot once he drops out for mental reasons. 

I doubt the DNC will support Sanders.  I also doubt Biden will drop out on his own.  Bloomberg has as much of a chance as Trump did.  

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

8 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I doubt the DNC will support Sanders.  I also doubt Biden will drop out on his own.  Bloomberg has as much of a chance as Trump did.  

The DNC won't support Sanders and Biden can't out together a coherent sentence. So Biden might be forced to drop out. 

[Dashinka 24,579]

18 hours ago, Boiler said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-voters-motivated-racism-may-be-violating-constitution-can-they-ncna1110356

 

So how should we censure voters who do not vote for approved candidates.

Went back and read the article again, how does this person explain 2008 and all the folks that voted for President Obama solely because of race?

 

Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, "Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box." Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.