origins of the religious right

[redleghunter]

Red, you refused to accept Michael Steele's word on the subject of Republican Party strategy, and you wonder why I'm hesitant?

I already commented on Steele's piece. I said he made good points but he did not indict his own party of racism. He also did not imply or state the Southern Strategy was an intent to discriminate. Therefore, he adds nothing to your demagoguery.

You do realize it is untruthful to imply I don't back up my assertion with facts when I have done that numerous times. You specifically asked me to show you where I have provided evidence, and I took the time to find the posts and tell you. Seriously, why would you imply something you know is untruthful? Not cool.

You have some numbers below, finally, in which I will comment on. But no, you have presented out of context abridged quotes, generalizations and applied stereotyping of large swaths of a huge American populace. Which to boot is trying to defend what you and other think others have going on in their minds---mind reading.

In real life, I always believe in giving people a second chance, so I suppose I should do the same here.

This is not real life? Perhaps a re-examination is in order. You are dealing with real people on this forum.

From the guardian, and this is from June 2016, when Trump's numbers were better, so the situation is even worse for Trump today, but here we go:

% difference favouring Clinton

Non-White Male: 38% favour Clinton
Non-White Female: 56% favour Clinton

So non-whites favour Clinton. That leaves whites.:

Actually those numbers are not that bad considering you have presented Trump as Lucifer on these threads. So Trump not looking like the grand dragon master of the white sheeted horsemen as you painted. He may just have better numbers than Romney. Or is Romney a racist now?

Females: 19% favour Clinton
White Females: 2% favour Clinton

So females favour Clinton. That leaves males

The above numbers are terrible for a Presidential candidate. However, looking at the raw numbers it seems millions of women will vote for him. Again, not an indicator of racism.

White College Graduates: 8% favour Clinton

Good, this torpedoes your point only uneducated people are voting for Trump. The differential is no different in previous election cycles. For the Romney-Obama election in 2012 the differential was 4-5% depending on exit polling. Which is in the margin of error for your numbers. Therefore, there are millions of college educated people voting for Trump. A bit more for Hillary.

So that leaves Trump's base and only demographic: uneducated white males

No it does not. The 8% differential shows neither Trump nor Hillary has the White college graduates locked up. A locked up demographic is what Obama had in 2012. He had 93% of the Black vote and 73% of the Latino vote and roughly 5% of the College educated vote. No one called Romney a racist (not even the DNC hacks) and candidate of poor uneducated whites.

What you presented is a good case that Trump may lose his election bid. There is absolutely no conclusion from the numbers that Trump's base is racist white males. You can continue to make that up, but the numbers you provided work against your assertions.

Read about it in this article: Trump's Base, White Males Without College Degrees Often Don't Vote

That is what the DNC is hoping will happen. It is also what McCain thought when his advisors said inner city Blacks will not vote even for Obama. They were dead wrong. So we will have to see what this election brings us.

Thank you for pointing out Trumps numbers stink. Unfortunately, the numbers do not paint the picture you want of a frothing at the mouth racist white poor hill billys in a Bible thumping bib overall wearing farm town. The link you provided shows me VERY close to the numbers Romney had on election day in 2012. Now are you going to label the nice Mittster as a racist too?

 

[PapaZoom]

Er, nice non-sequitur? Or just trying to create a strawman?

Dude, that was neither. YOu need to study your logic a tad bit more.

 

[PapaZoom]

LOL, True that. But mine was more accurate and funnier. I especially like the part where I pointed out that Trump had turned the "Party of Personal Responsibility" into the "Party of the Perpetual Whinge".

No no no.

For shame for shame, your's was lame.

 

[J Cord]

Dude, that was neither. YOu need to study your logic a tad bit more.

Sorry, you're wrong.

 

[PapaZoom]

Sorry, you're factually wrong.

Factually wrong?
That's your song?
Logic misapplied!
Reasoning fried!
I am quite right.
Now go fly a kite.

 

[J Cord]

Factually wrong?
That's your song?
Logic misapplied!
Reasoning fried!
I am quite right.
Now go fly a kite.

That's your best?
Surely you jest!
Exploiting your fear,
That's Trump's new career,
But stop being afraid,
You've got a Canadian's aid.

 

[redleghunter]

Looks like the thread has run its course as the Cat and the Hat has entered the room.

 

[J Cord]

Good, this torpedoes your point only stupid people are voting for Trump.

Yet another untruth? I have never said only stupid people are voting for Trump.

Either produce a quote where I said only stupid people vote for Trump, or apologize and stop being untruthful. Thank you.

 

[redleghunter]

Yet another untruth? I have never said only stupid people are voting for Trump.

Either produce a quote where I said only stupid people vote for Trump, or apologize and stop being untruthful. Thank you.

More precisely, you have stated the uneducated vote for Trump. When the numbers do not stand up that. The differentials are very close for the educated.

 

[SolomonVII]

Excellent post. I truly enjoy the essays from First Things. If you find the link to the one you mention I would appreciate a ping. Thanks.

I think you nailed it above.

I don't know if this is the one that I was referring to, but it does a very good job at describing what Fishtown means, and what the Belmont means too.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/03/the-one-percent


How did this happen? We can’t identify a single cause. But reading Coming ApartI found myself entertaining a hypothesis about Belmont’s contribution to Fishtown’s dysfunction. “Within just a few years,” Murray observes, “white college-educated men and women became enthusiastic recruits for the sexual revolution.” By 1970, only around 50 percent of the cohort that makes up Murray’s statistical Belmont in the General Social Survey believed that “extramarital sex is always wrong.” Yet by the 2000s, 70 percent affirmed that extramarital sex is always wrong.

Why isn’t this completely good news? The neo-¬traditionalism that now exists in Belmont lacks moral energy. As Murray points out, and with some exasperation, our elite culture insists on a nonjudgmental public ethic. Children out of wedlock? That’s not wrong, it’s just a life style choice. Divorce? Unfortunate, perhaps, but often necessary, and in any event it only makes things worse to condemn it.

Given the neo-bourgeois uniformity of Belmont”marriage as the norm, infrequent divorce, very few illegitimate births”Murray finds this nonjudgmentalism “one of the more baffling features of the new-upper-class culture.” I’m not baffled at all. Precisely because it has largely isolated itself from the rest of America, Belmont can get on quite well without the strict judgments of the old moral codes. Exclusive neighborhoods, private schools, and elite universities preserve an environment of sensible but restrained hedonism. A fierce focus on academic success among the young and career success for adults builds habits of discipline that can function reasonably well without old-fashioned moral rigorism. And when things go wrong, therapists and counselors and other professionals are ready at hand.

So why moralize? After all, strict moral standards might rebound and strike elites in their moments of weakness. People in Belmont are human like the rest of us. Some do in fact get divorced. Their sons are sometimes gay, their daughters sometimes promiscuous, and so forth. The new elites are not about to sacrifice the happiness of their own for the common good!
*******************************************
The values of the Religious Right are alive and well, and have been adopted by the bourgoise liberals who practice what the televangelists of yore only preached.
Of course, they do not preach what they practice. Evangelism is dead to them. It is enough that gated communities keep out the hoi-polloi.
It is the faux compassion of the liberal left.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't know if this is the one that I was referring to, but it does a very good job at describing what Fishtown means, and what the Belmont means too.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/03/the-one-percent


How did this happen? We can’t identify a single cause. But reading Coming ApartI found myself entertaining a hypothesis about Belmont’s contribution to Fishtown’s dysfunction. “Within just a few years,” Murray observes, “white college-educated men and women became enthusiastic recruits for the sexual revolution.” By 1970, only around 50 percent of the cohort that makes up Murray’s statistical Belmont in the General Social Survey believed that “extramarital sex is always wrong.” Yet by the 2000s, 70 percent affirmed that extramarital sex is always wrong.

Why isn’t this completely good news? The neo-¬traditionalism that now exists in Belmont lacks moral energy. As Murray points out, and with some exasperation, our elite culture insists on a nonjudgmental public ethic. Children out of wedlock? That’s not wrong, it’s just a life style choice. Divorce? Unfortunate, perhaps, but often necessary, and in any event it only makes things worse to condemn it.

Given the neo-bourgeois uniformity of Belmont”marriage as the norm, infrequent divorce, very few illegitimate births”Murray finds this nonjudgmentalism “one of the more baffling features of the new-upper-class culture.” I’m not baffled at all. Precisely because it has largely isolated itself from the rest of America, Belmont can get on quite well without the strict judgments of the old moral codes. Exclusive neighborhoods, private schools, and elite universities preserve an environment of sensible but restrained hedonism. A fierce focus on academic success among the young and career success for adults builds habits of discipline that can function reasonably well without old-fashioned moral rigorism. And when things go wrong, therapists and counselors and other professionals are ready at hand.

So why moralize? After all, strict moral standards might rebound and strike elites in their moments of weakness. People in Belmont are human like the rest of us. Some do in fact get divorced. Their sons are sometimes gay, their daughters sometimes promiscuous, and so forth. The new elites are not about to sacrifice the happiness of their own for the common good!
*******************************************
The values of the Religious Right are alive and well, and have been adopted by the bourgoise liberals who practice what the televangelists of yore only preached.
Of course, they do not preach what they practice. Evangelism is dead to them. It is enough that gated communities keep out the hoi-polloi.
It is the faux compassion of the liberal left.

Excellent and spot on. Basic observation confirms the above.

 

[J Cord]

More precisely, you have stated the uneducated vote for Trump. When the numbers do not stand up that. The differentials are very close for the educated.

Apparently you just don't get it.

You stated that I posted something despicable, something I never posted, that "only stupid people are voting for Trump". I pointed this out and politely asked you to apologize. Not only did you not edit your post and remove this scurrilous statement, but instead of apologizing, you obfuscate.

The breezes are blowing, the sun is shining, and the waves are beckoning, and I'm setting sail for Puget Sound. I'm sure you are an honourable person in real life, and it would be nice if you were honourable here as well and edited your post and apologized.

P.S. - I don't believe I have *ever* used the word stupid to describe anyone other than perhaps public figures. I have used the word uneducated numerous times, so it appears you might equate uneducated with stupid. If so, I suggest looking the two words up in a dictionary, as there can be stupid people with a great education, like Donald Trump, and there can be smart people without a formal education, like Abraham Lincoln.

 

[redleghunter]

Apparently you just don't get it.

You stated that I posted something despicable, something I never posted, that "only stupid people are voting for Trump". I pointed this out and politely asked you to apologize. Not only did you not edit your post and remove this scurrilous statement, but instead of apologizing, you obfuscate.

The breezes are blowing, the sun is shining, and the waves are beckoning, and I'm setting sail for Puget Sound. I'm sure you are an honourable person in real life, and it would be nice if you were honourable here as well and edited your post and apologized.

P.S. - I don't believe I have *ever* used the word stupid to describe anyone other than perhaps public figures. I have used the word uneducated numerous times, so it appears you might equate uneducated with stupid. If so, I suggest looking the two words up in a dictionary, as there can be stupid people with a great education, like Donald Trump, and there can be smart people without a formal education, like Abraham Lincoln.

Duly edited and I apologize for inferring you said so. Your precise words have been 'uneducated.'

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's true. As is those who evoke racism against people with opposing views. Actually that is the definition of bigotry.

What do you call those who attract all the racists to their side?

 

[redleghunter]

What do you call those who attract all the racists to their side?

Who is getting 'all' the racists to their side? Also, which racists are we talking about exactly? White, Black, Latino, other, all of the above?

Are we addressing perceived racism based on potential thoughts (passive)/demographics? Or confirmed racism by act/violence? Or both?

 

[SolomonVII]

Who is getting 'all' the racists to their side? Also, which racists are we talking about exactly? White, Black, Latino, other, all of the above?

Are we addressing perceived racism based on potential thoughts (passive)/demographics? Or confirmed racism by act/violence? Or both?

With Milwaukee gangs chasing down white people for being white, and the sister of the slain thug calling for the suburbs to be set aflame, when it comes to violence, it is Obama that invites BLM instigators to the White House.
It is really quite something that this kind of story does not get wall to wall coverage.
But then again, it serves no propaganda purpose for the power elites that run America.
It is hard to say how many who support Trump are racists, or how many just really are for law and order and the cessation of the glorification of cop killer.

Heather MacDonald wrote the definitive book on this war on cops, and the violent racism that has everybody losing.
http://www.lanereport.com/65360/2016/07/opinion-thomas-sowell-the-war-on-cops-in-two-parts/

Obama's presidency may now adequately be defined as Race-Baiter-in Chief. With crime rates spiking in many major cities as the Ferguson effect, this is the legacy that Obama has left us all with.

The Great Unifier legacy is that of the great Divider. It is reminiscent of the 1960's. What the Democratic party has done for Detroit they will not do for the rest of the country.

 

[redleghunter]

With Milwaukee gangs chasing down white people for being white, and the sister of the slain thug calling for the suburbs to be set aflame, when it comes to violence, it is Obama that invites BLM instigators to the White House.
It is really quite something that this kind of story does not get wall to wall coverage.
But then again, it serves no propaganda purpose for the power elites that run America.
It is hard to say how many who support Trump are racists, or how many just really are for law and order and the cessation of the glorification of cop killer.

Heather MacDonald wrote the definitive book on this war on cops, and the violent racism that has everybody losing.
http://www.lanereport.com/65360/2016/07/opinion-thomas-sowell-the-war-on-cops-in-two-parts/

Obama's presidency may now adequately be defined as Race-Baiter-in Chief. With crime rates spiking in many major cities as the Ferguson effect, this is the legacy that Obama has left us all with.

The Great Unifier legacy is that of the great Divider. It is reminiscent of the 1960's. What the Democratic party has done for Detroit they will not do for the rest of the country.

As always you nail to the wall. Thanks for the link too.