The Trump Card > Likes and Comments

In all fairness, the democrats really didn't gain much ground when it came to foreign policy. Did they? They had a lot of glamour and charisma but that was about it.

Hi Mehreen, what do you see as the key features, or distinctions between Trump & Clinton on Foreign Policy?

I think the vote is more against 'old' Washington elites and politics.
As often happens the expectations may be frustrated, for who can be sure Trump knows how to make America great again?

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Hi Mehreen, what do you see as the key features, or distinctions between Trump & Clinton on Foreign Policy?"

They haven't been able to resolve anything. The Vietnam war, Isis, The Cold War (Reagan resolved that) Hillary voted for the Iraq war, Benghazi, The Palestinian conflict. God knows I detest Trump - a racist and a misogynist. But why the distrust? Why so much hatred for the democrats, I don't understand that either. Is this because they are deemed as lefty, trendy, elitists?

@ Mehreen.
I believe that this hatred and distrust reflects the insecurity of low-middle class White Americans (the mainstay of Trump's support base in this election), as it faces the inevitable prospect of becoming a minority inside the U.S.A. in the years to come. The Democrats happen to take much of their support from the present minorities, thus the hatred. Unfortunately, Americans should accept this simple fact: there is still rampant racism and bigotry in the U.S.A. today. Now, watch the reaction of African-Americans to the results of this election, which is bound to encourage racists and bigots to be even more obnoxious.

Why Trump? . . . People fall for specious arguments; take the easy way.

M.L. Roberts wrote: "Why Trump? . . . People fall for specious arguments; take the easy way."

Yeah, my point too.

Michel wrote: "@ Mehreen.
I believe that this hatred and distrust reflects the insecurity of low-middle class White Americans (the mainstay of Trump's support base in this election), as it faces the inevitable p..."

I'm afraid so although his speech sounded nice enough.

I'm afraid so although his speech sounded nice enough.

He is a serial liar, and will say what he thinks will sway his audience.

We know why he was elected. DT projected the dissatisfaction of the US public--special interests over the needs of the common man.

Last night I saw a documentary on the US presidents since Lincoln. Lincoln, according to his writings, was a manipulator, and believed image was everything. He realized this when he was a young lawyer, and build on this image to gain the presidency. From his writings, there is debate whether he was that good of a president.

What struck me about the documentary, wasn't about image, but about the promises the candidates made. But, imagery did help to elect the presidents and defeat their opponents. Every president since Eisenhower, promised a greater future for the American public--we'll make America great again. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The Republicans were tired of the 1930s-40s New Deal. And, Eisenhower promised a new greater America. Democrats promised a continuation of failed efforts--the New Deal.

According to the documentary, America's greatness has been going down since the 1960s even though they promised job stability, more income, and controlling inflation. I didn't happen. Prices kept going up, wages continued to go down, job security declined, and the American Dream dwindled. The reality is entrepreneurial efforts in the first year fail--about 1 in every 10 succeed. After that, the success of any business has been going down.

I say, will Trump change this?

If we look at the national events in the last year, DT might succeed. A great change has happened.
1. A woman has become a candidate for president--a first.
2. The Cubs won the World Series after 104 years. The curse has been broken.
3. A rebellious, immoral sleaze-ball, has been elected president. (In the past, presidents projected high moral qualities.) But, DT was the first to break that rule. You now can project smut.

It will be interesting to see what will happen. I read this morning, riots have broken out in the US. It's being played down here in Germany.

I'd like some feedback on this.

GR wrote: "We know why he was elected. DT projected the dissatisfaction of the US public--special interests over the needs of the common man.

Last night I saw a documentary on the US presidents since Lincol..."

Women leadership have prevailed in India, Bangladesh, Shri Lanka for decades. What do Americans have against woman leaders?

GR wrote: "Prices kept going up, wages continued to go down, job security declined, and the American Dream dwindled. The reality is entrepreneurial efforts in the first year fail--about 1 in every 10 succeed. After that, the success of any business has been going down. ..."

Money is the only God, after us the deluge and dog eat dog philosophy erodes the societal balance....

Mehreen wrote: "GR wrote: "We know why he was elected. DT projected the dissatisfaction of the US public--special interests over the needs of the common man.

Last night I saw a documentary on the US presidents s..."

Mehreen, here is the reason: If a woman comes along and projects an Alpha type image, everyone questions her--nobody likes an Alpha woman, not even women. Throughout the world, women are looked upon as a person with specific qualities, not as a gender with specific qualities.

An Alpha type for men is expected and demanded for male leaders. The more aggressive, the more Americans like him, not so for women. Women are expected to be subservient and supportive, nothing less. All we have to do is look at our sport heroes. The American society emulates the big, bad, and the TOUGH. Anybody who projects an image less than that is weak.

This is the sad reality of America. It's in our fictional culture, our super heroes, our illusion of what is great--big, better, and powerful. The illusion of Power is the essence of America. Our sports depict this.

If women are portrayed as an Alpha in our culture, she is vilified, e.g., Catwoman, in the Batman series, was originally a villain, but in recent depiction, she has become an Antihero--a hero with undesirable traits--a protagonist who lacks conventional heroic qualities such as idealism, courage, or morality. These individuals often possess dark personality traits such as disagreeableness, dishonesty, and aggressiveness. These characters are usually considered "conspicuously contrary to an archetypal hero". Think of the Clint Eastwood movies. DT is the perfect antihero. And because of this, it will be hard for a woman to become president. It's all about: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly! Or is it: A Fistful of Dollars.

GR wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "GR wrote: "We know why he was elected. DT projected the dissatisfaction of the US public--special interests over the needs of the common man.

Last night I saw a documentary on the..."

Also, I just read over the Yahoo news about the difference between the 2 candidates and what image they projected.

HC came over as an Alpha wearing suit-pants and over confident. Her husband came over as a person in the wings.

DT came over as authoritative and confident. He wore a black suit and a blue tie (symbol of authority and power). DT's wife's image came over as a woman. She wore a white dress (symbol of goodness and righteousness). The Image of DT is what America wants: Power, Goodness, Righteousness, and Authority.

HC tried, but didn't come over as having any qualities in her imagery. She project all along her falsehoods and dishonesty. I really feel sorry for her.

We have yet to see if the American choice was the better choice.

My view is DT came over as WYSIWYG. It looked as if you knew what he was going to do. HC came across as part of the establishment. Vote for her, and vote for more debt, and a vicious foreign policy that might start WW3. Nobody knows whether DT can really make America "great" again, but I don't think anyone expected HC to.

Hilary won the popular vote. This whole debacle and the subsequent debacles could have been avoided if someone had listened to me whdn i was in third grade and my teacher was explaining the electoral college thing. "Why don't they just vote and give it to whoever gets the most?" I asked. Problem is, we live in a narrow-minded society where people would rather lusten to a wealthy businessman than a smelly 9 year old kid with Aspergers.

Chad wrote: "Hilary won the popular vote. This whole debacle and the subsequent debacles could have been avoided if someone had listened to me whdn i was in third grade and my teacher was explaining the elector..."

Good one Chad :-)

The popular vote is irrelevant. If you live in a zone that you KNOW will send its electoral college votes one way, and you would prefer another, there is a much greater reason to elect to avoid voting. Further, the candidates don't put much effort into such zones, so if every vote was equal, an awful lot of things would be done differently. And, of course, small states wouldn't rate in the interest stakes.

Ian, in a fairly split county electoral map (no gerrymandering a la Republican fashion), each county's population would be roughly the same and the interest would then switch from state level to county level. Yes, the present electoral college system makes the popular vote nearly irrelevant, but it doesn't need to stay fixed in concrete. I suspect that, after this election, there will be pressures to get rid of that stupid, skewered system. It may take many years to do so, but its flaws are too obvious.

The 'interest stakes' are in my opinion irrelevant in an election deciding a single position: that of President of the United States. Where they count are in the Senate and Chamber of Representatives elections. And on the election of the President, a simple system of one person one vote would suffice. Have everybody vote, then count the totals per candidates, irrespective of where they voted, with the one with the most votes winning. Again, simpler, cheaper and much more fair. To not vote because you think your vote won't matter is defeatist and a cop-out. If you don't vote, then don't complain about the final results afterwards.

Michel, to not vote because you are reasonably convinced that the system will mean your vote is irrelevant is not a cop-out, and I was referring to the current US system. Dump the electoral college and that will change a lot, but hen the pork will be more liberally spread in zones of high population, because you get more return. I think you will find there is no ideal system, and you make compromises to try to promote certain ideals. Remember, Politicians will behave in their own best interests, not in some theoretical best interest.

That's all well and good. Nothing will change in congress if the majority won their seats and presidency. Such as it stands now. DT said the voting system is rigged, but, he won. Do you think he and congress wants to change the system?

It will only change if the majority of congress didn't get the presidency. That's why nothing has changed over the years.

Michel wrote: "@ Mehreen.
I believe that this hatred and distrust reflects the insecurity of low-middle class White Americans (the mainstay of Trump's support base in this election), as it faces the inevitable p..."

It's not necessarily that they're about to lose the status as the majority, in a lot of places it's about jobs. Obama's "war on coal" put large chunks of white Appalachia out of work and there was no effort to bring new industry in to replace coal. The Rust Belt, those blue states that Trump took from the Democrats or came close to winning, have a lot of working class whites who depended on manufacturing for decades have been gradually those jobs. The media has been focusing on towns in the Rust Belt in the days leading up to the election where the population has vanished because the factories, the mills, etc., have left. I know it's debatable if treaties like NAFTA were the reason for it, but when those jobs began to vanish after Bill Clinton approved the deal, it's easy to make that connection.

At the end of the night, it was those voters in the formerly blue states that decided the election for Trump, and their concerns were not race-based issues, but economical issues. They have always been dependable Democratic voters, but they have seen their jobs dry up. They feel they party has abandoned them and now takes their vote for granted.

The test for Trump will be if he can deliver on his promise to revitalize that part of the country, because if he fails, I seriously doubt they'll support him again in 2020.

My opinion is this - that when a candidate who collects more votes doesn't win elections, it somewhat undermines the notion of democracy, where decisions are taken by the majority, but that is not that much of a problem and I guess whatever the system - those whose candidate lost won't be satisfied -:). Yep, especially in these cases when college awarded victory to Trump, while more voted to Clinton, the belief in the system is most eroded.
But what is a much bigger problem in my opinion is that the elections is basically the only chance to influence something - once in 4 years with very distant result. That's it? That's all we worth? Who said any of them know or care what's better for me and you? Yeah, the candidate will do some things for people, because he/she needs PR and re-election, but rarely out of sincere care for people and certainly not something that goes against more 'weighty' concerns, such as sponsors' interests.
I say take the power back. If you can vote by fax in Washington, you can certainly vote for any principle decision through internet. I think we don't need that many 'representatives' - presidents, prime-ministers, congressmen, lords, MP and so on. We can take our own decisions on many issues - yes, by majority decision. The technology allows this. That would be real democracy, not some mirage...

GR wrote: "I say, will Trump change this? ..."

All we can do is wait an see. He made a lot of bold promises and those who voted for him will expect him to deliver results, even if they don't expect everything exactly as he promised.

If he doesn't at least build the wall or get it started, the Republican voters could turn on him next time.

If he doesn't spur revitalization in the Midwest, those working-class, traditionally Democrat-voting whites certainly won't vote for him again.

And if the bigotry and mysogeny of the campaign takes center stage throughout his presidency, we'll likely see fewer independents supporting 3rd party candidates next time just to vote against him.

Mehreen wrote: "GR wrote: "Women leadership have prevailed in India, Bangladesh, Shri Lanka for decades. What do Americans have against woman leaders?
..."

I'm not sure you can blame it entirely on the gender issue. Data coming out shows Clinton lost among non-college educated white women so badly, that she lost white women overall when that non-college educated demographic was thrown in with college educated white women.

Many Trump supporters the media has been digging up, especially among women, have been saying they're not opposed to a woman president, they're opposed to Clinton.

Clinton had a lot negatives following her around, and as the campaign went on, more and more came out. Just from the email leaks on Wikileaks, it seems like we learn about new dirt every day.

That's not to say Trump didn't have his own issues chained around his neck, but the post election autopsy suggests his message "Make America Great Again," was slightly more powerful and inspiring a message than "Stronger Together."

Don't forget, 8 years ago, we might have wondered if America was ready for a black president. But in the end, Obama's election only had a little to do with the race issue. The man had a very popular, upbeat message that resonated with a lot of people at a time when things looked bad. And despite the Republicans trying to find dirt against him, he really didn't have a lot of problems in his background that would have swayed minds like we saw this time around.

Michel wrote: "Ian, in a fairly split county electoral map (no gerrymandering a la Republican fashion)..."

This is one of the biggest fallacies we have in politics. gerrymandering is not a Republican issue, but Democrats love to say this because the Republicans happened to have more control after the last census. Just for reference look up Maryland's 3rd congressional district - one of, if not the craziest districts anywhere, and it was drawn by Democrats.

Contrast this with North Carolina's current map drawn by Republicans. To be fair, this map was drawn this year after a court overturned their first efforts after five years of litigation, but even this map is being challenged by liberal groups.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...

Gerrymandering is one of those issues the minority party loves to complain about. They spend ten years crying the process isn't fair and that it should be changed, but when the next census rolls around and they find themselves in power again, suddenly they change their tune. Gerrymandering isn't a bad thing and it should be allowed after all. Then you'll see the other party complain like they didn't get to do it when it was their turn.

"I suspect that, after this election, there will be pressures to get rid of that stupid, skewered system. It may take many years to do so, but its flaws are too obvious. )..."
To eliminate the electoral college would require an amendment to the Constitution. 2/3s of the Congress and 3/4s of the states have to approve it before it can change. The current system gives the smaller states some measure of power in our political system. While shifting to the popular vote sounds good in theory, doing so asks the states to surrender their power - half our population is concentrated in 10 states. It's not as simple as saying those ten states would end up controlling everything, but that will be the perception: that the remaining 40 states are handing over control of the country to the top ten.

That said, because the states decide how their electors vote, the states can pass laws directing how their electors vote. That is why many states have laws requiring their electors to vote for the winner in the state's election, and why two states assigns their delegates based on the winners of individual legislative district with only the extra two votes going to the overall winner.

Some years ago, and I honestly don't know how serious this was, I came across a movement to pass state laws requiring electors to vote based on the outcome of the national, not state votes. It sounds good on the surface, but you run into the same problem as passing an amendment. No matter who wins, you're asking a basket of states to ignore the will of their own people.

Denise wrote: "
2) Not everyone is allowed to vote in the primaries unless forced to claim a political party...."

As long as the system is set up where the parties select their nominees to present to the general electorate, then this is entirely fair. Neither party should have voters from other parties, or even independents tell them who to put forward. Party primaries are for Democrats to decide who their representative will be, and for Republicans to decide who their representative will be so that the two parties can put forward who they believe will be the strongest candidate.

If we want a broader electorate to decide who the candidates are, then the system should follow what we see in some countries where every candidate from all parties are thrown into a single election and the top two or three square off in a run-off. It might end up in a system where you see two Democrats facing off in the run-off or two Republicans instead of one of each, but this system eliminates the possibility of each party flooding into the other's primary to try and elect the weakest person in their race.

Nik wrote: "I say take the power back. If you can vote by fax in Washington, you can certainly vote for any principle decision through internet. I think we don't need that many 'representatives' - presidents, prime-ministers, congressmen, lords, MP and so on. We can take our own decisions on many issues - yes, by majority decision. The technology allows this. That would be real democracy, not some mirage... ..."

But what about the poor lobbyists - they will be out of work????

I say this - Who will stand with the lobbyists?

:-)

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "But what about the poor lobbyists - they will be out of work????
I say this - Who will stand with the lobbyists?
:-) ..."

They can follow manufacturing facilities to more exotic locations -:)
Of course, we won't let them drown. I think the public will support free of charge re-qualification courses into construction workers or other high-demand professions.

Denise wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Denise wrote: "
2) Not everyone is allowed to vote in the primaries unless forced to claim a political party...."

As long as the system is set up where the parties select their nomine..."

I just like looking at the nuts and bolts of things. If we're looking at the current system of party primaries, then it is fair to let the parties choose their nominees. All I'm saying is that what you're looking for is to do away with party nominations altogether. The system I think you want is the free-for-all style with a run-off between the top vote getters. That allows everyone to choose who faces off, not the parties.

I am not opposed to that idea and in fact that style might give 3rd party candidates a better shot at competing if you didn't have the parties controlling the process as much as they do with the system we have now.

Hi J.J.

I wonder if Bernie Sanders, in his private moments, would appreciate such as system as you describe.

Someone else can go back and look through the numbers and do the math, but if we had all 20 Republicans and the 5 Democrats, we might have been looking at Clinton v. Sanders runoff because the conservative vote would have been split a lot further than the liberal vote. Just think about this this, before candidates began dropping out, the lowest performing Republican in that large field had more support in the party than Chaffee, the lowest performing Democrat, had in that narrow race. Democrats knew early on who their top two choices were, while Republicans took most of the primary deciding which of theirs would be the Trump alternative.

Masi wrote: "Sorry to say, America is based on racists. The only people in America that haven't suffered from stereo-types, ignorant images, messed up mentalities is white men. In America, women is portrayed as..."

valid points.

maybe we can break that down a little. here's the 400 wealthiest americans (in real-time data):

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list...

27 of them are women.
How many are African American? How many are Jewish American? How many are Asian American? How many are Latino American? i haven't counted.

These 400 are the top of the 0.1% wealthiest in america.

trump's $3.7 billion solidly places him in the top 0.1% wealthiest americans and which, at #146, places him solidly in the top 400,(http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-...)

the Clinton's net worth = ~$45 million, which also places them in the 0.1% (http://www.fool.com/investing/general...)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywise...

now the question is:

"Do they rule America? Do they all have the same views?"

now, as far as population goes, if you also look at current projections, interestingly, the non-hispanic white population would drop from the 2014 estimate of 62.2% to the 2060 estimate of 43.6%:

"The point at which the non-Hispanic White alone population
will comprise less than 50 percent of the nation’s total population has been described as the point at which we become a “majority-minority” nation. According to these projections, the majority-minority crossover will occur in 2044. While the non-Hispanic White alone population is projected to remain the largest single group, no group will have a majority share of the total and the United States will become a “plurality” of racial and ethnic groups.

The Two or More Races population is projected to be the fastest growing over the next 46 years (see Table 2), with its population expected to triple in size (an increase of 226 percent). This group is projected to increase from 8 million to 26 million between 2014 and 2060. Its share of the total population is projected to increase from 2.5 percent in 2014 to 6.2 percent in 2060. "

(https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Ce..., p9)

Masi wrote: "Sorry to say, America is based on racists. The only people in America that haven't suffered from stereo-types, ignorant images, messed up mentalities is white men. In America, women is portrayed as..."

There are people concerned with racial/religious/gender issues everywhere and in the very same country there may be larger groups that have no such issues at all.
With elections there may be the pendulum effect - you have now the first Black president of US (and the fact that dozens of millions of people voted for him twice is not to be neglected in my opinion) to be succeeded by someone allegedly from the most distant opposite side of the spectrum... Not sure the campaign declaration are to be taken at their face value - most seem to have the only purpose of winning election without intent to be realized..
Besides, as far as I understand there are real problems with illegal immigration and terror cells that may require treatment of the authorities...

This tread is too long! Let's start another one.

Masi wrote: "Sorry to say, America is based on racists. The only people in America that haven't suffered from stereo-types, ignorant images, messed up mentalities is white men. In America, women is portrayed as..."

It always bugs me when someone says he's not "qualified" to be president. or in this case because he's not a politician. Fact is our Constitution allowed for anyone to run. We were set up for the citizen politician. I won't defend Trump specifically, but to make these specific claims is an argument that our country should only be run by the political elite - this argument is exactly what many Americans voted against when they selected Trump.

Traditionally we haven't always looked to politicians for the presidency. Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower were favored for their military careers, not for what little political activity they took up between those careers and their administrations. Historically, prior political office has not been an overriding quality, but rather the ability to lead or administrate depending on what the county happens to be going through and what kind of a President the country needs. You can argue the merits of his business experience, but the head of any company is a leader with skills that do translate in much the same way a general's experience leading men in combat translate.

It is strange hearing liberals suggest we should throw up more barriers to political office and more "qualifications" than the Constitution lays out. To follow the Anti-Trump logic on this point, we might have disqualified Obama from running because his two years in the Senate was scant. We would have disqualified African Americans from entering office after the end of Jim Crow in the 60s and 70s because of the lack of experience Jim Crow prevented them from attaining in the past.

Liberals have been claiming all throughout the campaign that words matter, but they don't seem to understand the implications of this particular line of attack on Trump. To suggest "qualifications" that simply don't exist in the Constitution hearkens back to the poll taxes and literacy tests that kept African Americans from voting in the 19th and early 20th century - similar "qualifications" that didn't exist in the Constitution, but which society decided were necessary.

Hi Masi, you wrote,

Sorry to say, America is based on racists...

[1] How did Barack Obama win two terms as President in a country based on racists? How did that happen?

The only people in America that haven't suffered from stereo-types, ignorant images, messed up mentalities is white men....

[2] What are the concepts of "Redneck," "White Trailer Trash," "Cracker," if not negative white stereotypes.

In America, women is portrayed as house wives, weaklings, softies. Ignorant people think that women are only built to be married, take care of children, cook, and clean. ...

[3] Masi, I don't know what world you're living in. In the world that I'm living in, there is an abundance of images of strong women in our culture, film and story. In my personal life I am surrounded by strong women and all the guys I know have strong women in their lives.

My life is blessed by the presence of strong women, I hope that your life is as well.

They do not understand that we are more than that. That is the mentality Donald Trump has....

[4] Agreed. We are all more than negative stereotypes.

Donald Trump is absorbed with himself and thinks he can control the U.S because he is rich and he can speak his mind....

[5] Donald Trump does seem to be self absorbed and I agree that the rich dominate policy in the US, but everyone can speak their mind.

He has no political background (Come on! Hillary's Husband was the President and she is the Senate of the U.S. Don't you think she knows a lot about politics?),...

[6] This is a recipe for the domination of politics by careerists and insiders - would you be comfortable with US political life being dominated by those whose policies you disagree with.

The key question to ask about any operational political framework is what happens when your opponents have power? Have you asked yourself that question?

he made racist comments about Mexican immigrants (https://www.theodysseyonline.com/dona...), and said he would tolerate the Klu Klux Klan....

[7] The first is "deplorable." The second is trickier. We all need to tolerate the speech of those with whom we disagree. Without free speech for all, there is no way to protect our other rights.

What's so great about ''Make America Great Again.'' Cough, Cough. Great? The only way America succeeds because it's a very wealthy country and it's filled with white people....

[8.a] The US is not a wealthy nation - it is an indebted nation bordering on insolvency. The US has the illusion of wealth created by consuming it's own future production.

[8.b] Are you suggesting that nations are wealthy based on the color of the skin of the people that live there?

I have nothing against any races, but what I'm telling is based on facts....

[9] "Facts" are debatable.

FYI 1: I'm not a US citizen, and I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I'm an interested observer as what happens in the US political arena affects us all.

FYI 2: I'm not "having a go" at you Masi - I'm discussing your ideas.

This is a really great response Graeme, but I have to disagree with number one.

The election of a non-white president was a big step in America's long history with overcoming racism, but Obama's presidency has actually served to emphasize how far we have to go. Racism is still very prevalent in America, and while I agree that to say America is "based on racists" is anachronistic at best, racism does effect every aspect of American life, in ways both obvious and unseen.

Hi Masi,

I'm Australian. I was just concerned that you might be offended when I seperated your original comment out like I did.

Your response is mature - big thumbs up - means we can have discussions.

Is "1954?" directed at me - your meaning is not clear.

Hi Daniel,

I take your point.

Racism is still a major problem, and if anything may be getting worse.

The reason that I say that, is that it appears to me that the US is being divided along racial lines (an other fault lines as well).

The whole concept of racism can be played upon by power operators who co-opt racist and anti-racist narratives to sow social division rather than uniting people through everyone's common humanity.

I think a great question to ask is this.

What does a truly post-racist world look like?

For me, it's a world in which everyone wakes up in the morning and no one cares about the color of someone elses skin, or the shape of their eyes, or the tightness of their hair.

It's a world in which people are massively indifferent to other peoples genetic heritage for skin pigmentation.

It's a world where we care about how kind someone is, or how honest, or how generous they are, and not about the accident of who their parents were.

What do you think?

Overstated? In what way? Trump campaigned on an election based entirely on the deportation of 11 million Mexican-Americans and the creation of a wall, not to mention suspending immigration from Islamic countries. He also claimed that far more white people are murdered by black people than the reverse, and that a black man assaulted at his rally was an ISIS agent come to kill him. He received billions in free advertising from the mainstream media, and won the election. And the response to this victory has been an upsurge in hate crimes perpetrated by crowds chanting "white power" and "make America white again". This problem isn't being overstated, it is and has been understated from the beginning.

As for Obama's presidency, do we need to rehash the resistance, disrespect and intolerance he had to endure during his eight years in office? His opponents actively courted openly racist voters who believed Obama was a Kenyan national, a dangerous socialist, a traitor, and someone who should be killed. He has had to prove he was American by birth (no other president has in the history of the country), and had to deal with a Republican congress who's only goal since 2002 was to repeal Obamacare and impeach him. Through it all, he showed composure and patience, but was still villified for somehow being tyrannical.

Hi Matt, I edited my post before I saw your reply - it wasn't originally worded the way I wanted it to be.

When I originally used the word "overstated" I was thinking along the lines that Racism is a belief system that sits on top of a deeper issue.

I edited it out, as it is the wrong word to describe what I'm trying to say.

To clarify as follows.

[1] The deeper issue is social division.

[2] Social division is actively pursued by those who seek dominion over the rest of us as it sets us against each other and provides leverage for political action.

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Hi Matt, I edited my post before I saw your reply - it wasn't originally worded the way I wanted it to be.

When I originally used the word "overstated" I was thinking along the lines that Racism i..."

Huh, that's actually quite clear and very well reasoned. Well goddamn, there goes my righteous anger! ;)

And I would agree. America is a place where racism is so often masking the problem of people being screwed over. I mean, how many Trump voters - and members of the KKK and Aryan Nation - are poor, white, unemployed or underemployed people wondering what the hell happened?

Bingo.

Hello, I'm coming along at the tail-end of this discussion, and did read through some of it. I'd have to concur with some comments I read by Denise, Nik, and Graeme.

On the topic of racism in the US: Since massive movements toward integration in the 1960s, and the efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., the peaceful demonstrations, and the race riots, the US government and the majority of the populace have worked toward equality for all races.

In my lifetime, racism in the US has been a more regional issue, at its worst across some of the southeastern states, west into Texas and Oklahoma. It didn't seem to be an issue in the northeastern states when I lived there, nor is it in Colorado, which seems to be fairly blind to skin color.

While racism (primarily toward blacks) has simmered all these years in the southeast US, the government and rest of the country have kept a lid on it. Over those decades, a Latino population has been quietly growing northward. With the terrorist-inspired shootings over the past few years, an anti-Muslim sentiment has been growing (primarily, I believe) among the already-simmering racist population. (Largely the conservative southeast portion of the US, with some pockets elsewhere.) The more enlightened populace has tried to educate all of us that Islam teaches peace, and that most Muslims are peace-loving.

Now all of a sudden we have a prominent citizen, now president-elect, spouting racist comments and yelling, "build the wall." The effect since the election has been to somewhat lift the lid off the stewing racism that has been there all along. (The racism has been there since the days of slavery, with the slave states being these same southeast ones, and I don't see it as a function of unemployment.) Suddenly it's okay to behave badly, in a manner that appears to have been espoused by our new to-be political leader. The rest of the country is shocked, and trying to get the lid back on the kettle, but that hasn't happened yet. The racism, this time, is directed not only toward Blacks, but also toward Latinos and Muslims.

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Bingo."

You ever seen Bullworth? It's a Warren Beatty movie about a Democratic Senator who turns conservative, is seeking re-election in the late 90s, has a nervous breakdown, and then decides to just start telling the truth. He says this very thing almost exactly and it was quite awesome!

Matthew wrote: "Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Bingo."

You ever seen Bullworth? It's a Warren Beatty movie about a Democratic Senator who turns conservative, is seeking re-election in the late 90s, has a nervous breakd..."

I saw it (Bullworth) not long ago. Loved it, except for the ending.

Matthew wrote: "Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Bingo."

You ever seen Bullworth? It's a Warren Beatty movie about a Democratic Senator who turns conservative, is seeking re-election in the late 90s, has a nervous breakd..."

Saw it a long time ago - had Warren Beatty and Halle Berry if I remember correctly,

P.J. wrote: "It didn't seem to be an issue in the northeastern states when I lived there ..."

I know you qualified it with "when I lived there," but it is a fallacy to think racism in the North was any better than it was in the South. PBS ran a new series by Henry Louis Gates, Jr., the last two weeks called Black in America Since MLK: And Still I Rise. When he addresses the 70s and early 80s, he devotes some time to this issue in the North.

Efforts to integrate Boston schools led to anger, riots and violence that looked like it came out of Birmingham. MLK set up camp in Chicago and tried to organize a protest in a park that divided White Chicago from Black Chicago. White response was so violent, he left Chicago altogether and returned to the South - at one point during the event he was hit in the head with a rock. When middle-class African Americans started moving into white areas of Queens, NY, whites fled the neighborhood and moved to Long Island. Integration in the school systems is what led to the rise of private schools as middle-class whites pulled their kids out to find a white environment.

My own experience is limited. I grew up in southern Rhode Island which is a largely white area. The street I grew up on was a pocket of black families up until the end of the 70s who lived in these tiny, ramshackle homes that no one could get away with building today thanks to stricter building codes. Story was that as the families moved out, the homes were torched so that "they couldn't come back." By the time I was old enough to be aware of the world, there was only one family left, and sure enough, when they moved out, the home was torched.