"Trump is following a playbook written for him by Christian White Nationalists."

[Geronimo]

There's 2 males most elections because the bias against women doesn't even allow a woman to get that far most times. You mentioned 2008. Hillary didn't get past Obama.

Yes, we've made strides in reducing the effect of racism and misogyny on elections, but there's clearly still a net bias against women. Probably a net bias against minorities. Many of the people who were responsible for it being a completely insurmountable bias (pre-2000s) are still alive and voting.

It's ridiculous to try to blame this on the people pointing out and fighting against the bias. The blame lies squarely on misogynists and their apologists. Stop trying to excuse them.

One Problem with your post is that people are dynamic entities. Those huge strides you refer to were impossible without the support of the people who lived under those prior systems actively pushing the system out of its comfort zone. They could just as well be assumed to be on the whole to be demonstrated to have been advocates for more women presidents. We don't know how much of the long dry spell in female presidents is due to current gender bias in the general electorate against women or even if there might be some net bias in favor of women in the general electorate vs how much relates to other biases against women earlier in the process like a message to women candidates that the general electorate will have a decisive bias against them for being women.

<on problem ---->one problem...i hate tiny edits>

[Aeson]

What did Harris run on?

Pretty mainstream D platform.

If you're someone successful in your career who is defined by others as one of the protected classes that DEI is supposed to serve by helping those protected classes out and you've worked with a broad diverse slice of the population. do you think you welcome the presence of DEI in your workplace? If you verbalize opposition to DEI what does it mean?

Yes.

If you oppose DEI you are either for discrimination against protected classes, or you're misunderstanding what DEI is.

Trump's idiocy about offsetting US trade deficits with country-by-country tariffs is moronic . What would possibly make you think it is best explained as an expression of xenophobia rather than brain-dead amateur macro-economics. If it was motivated by xenophobia wouldn't more culturally familiar countries like Canada and Mexico get lower tariffs relative to their trade account surpluses than more culturally distant countries? I'd be sincerely interested in how you concluded it was xenophobia.

Because his rhetoric, especially the lies and fear mongering about foreigners/immigrants, is clearly xenophobic. While Trump himself may not be xenophobic (I doubt he cares), he constantly panders to his base which is rabidly xenophobic. He does so with rhetoric that is blatantly xenophobic.

Have you talked to low-income, low-skilled Americans, especially those who are members of a protect class about how they feel about deporting 10 million illegals. Ending birthright citizenship. Ending and deporting DACA?

"Low skilled" is a poor way of putting it.

I ride the bus to and from work everyday. I work a physical job. Most riding with me are minorities. Most I work around are minorities. I don't talk politics with them much, but the ones I have talked to are all scared. Most I've spoken to have family that are negatively affected already. They are worried if being caught up in ICE raids. Everyone I talk to about my place in the Philippines expresses the wish they could leave this country and get away from the racist bull****.

One of my relatives is an Asian American disabled veteran who's worked for the DOD for 7 years. She was hired under Trump, and now being fired under Trump. No performance reviews. She's scared for her mixed race children being picked up by ICE.

Her husband is also a DEI hire at the IRS. He was working in the big business and high net worth individuals division. He's been fired without cause. He had been running the tax department at a giant multinational before some health issues (legally disabled), so settled for a fraction of the pay to have more time to rest and be with family. He and the others (there were 12, now at best 3 ... most if not all of the disabled, because the pay is so poor compared to similar corporate jobs no one chooses that work for the money) working with him bring in tens of billions a year to the IRS by finding where these rich *******s are trying to break the law.

There are others in my family who support this insanity. They think DEI is some great evil because Trump lies to them. Fox News lies to them. So they support the destruction of their own family.

[Aeson]

One Problem with your post is that people are dynamic entities. Those huge strides you refer to were impossible without the support of the people who lived under those prior systems actively pushing the system out of its comfort zone. They could just as well be assumed to be on the whole to be demonstrated to have been advocates for more women presidents. We don't know how much of the long dry spell in female presidents is due to current gender bias in the general electorate against women or even if there might be some net bias in favor of women in the general electorate vs how much relates to other biases against women earlier in the process like a message to women candidates that the general electorate will have a decisive bias against them for being women.

<on problem ---->one problem...i hate tiny edits>

Births and immigration are more common than old racists and misogynists becoming "woke".

[Geronimo]

​
Pretty mainstream D platform.

no. the problem was that in every interview or townhall or debate, rather than enthusiasm about her platform what we got from Harris was this obvious reluctance to share platform information or much of anything really and a constant transparent effort to dodge seemingly every question on any topic, suggesting she didn't think we would like the answer. that could easily be a bigger problem for potential voters than the drivel that Trump constantly served up.

Yes.

If you oppose DEI you are either for discrimination against protected classes, or you're misunderstanding what DEI is.

What is your exposure to DEI?
I certainly hope DEI is more things than the exposure I had to the program devised by our DEI consultants' team at my employer. My employer has dropped the DEI program but remains 100% opposed to discrimination against any protected class at any stage of any business relationship as they have always been prior to DEI and DEI consultants. Opposition to DEI cannot equate to support for discrimination for the same reasons that DEI advocates reminded us that opposition to discrimination did not equal DEI. DEI was a program that overtly insisted that elimination of personal bias in decisions would never be adequate. it could be that it was these consultants that gave DEI a bad name and it could be that it encompassed some worthy programs, but the bad apples have surely driven the backlash not nostalgia for discrimination to be back in the workplace.

Because his rhetoric, especially the lies and fear mongering about foreigners/immigrants, is clearly xenophobic. While Trump himself may not be xenophobic (I doubt he cares), he constantly panders to his base which is rabidly xenophobic. He does so with rhetoric that is blatantly xenophobic.

"Low skilled" is a poor way of putting it.

I ride the bus to and from work everyday. I work a physical job. Most riding with me are minorities. Most I work around are minorities. I don't talk politics with them much, but the ones I have talked to are all scared. Most I've spoken to have family that are negatively affected already. They are worried if being caught up in ICE raids. Everyone I talk to about my place in the Philippines expresses the wish they could leave this country and get away from the racist bull****.

One of my relatives is an Asian American disabled veteran who's worked for the DOD for 7 years. She was hired under Trump, and now being fired under Trump. No performance reviews. She's scared for her mixed race children being picked up by ICE.

Her husband is also a DEI hire at the IRS. He was working in the big business and high net worth individuals division. He's been fired without cause. He had been running the tax department at a giant multinational before some health issues (legally disabled), so settled for a fraction of the pay to have more time to rest and be with family. He and the others (there were 12, now at best 3) working with him bring in tens of billions a year to the IRS by finding where these rich *******s are trying to break the law.

There are others in my family who support this insanity. They think DEI is some great evil because Trump lies to them. Fox News lies to them. So they support the destruction of their own family.

My point was that support for Trump's absurd anti-illegal immigrants or even support for any broader anti-immigrant policies can be found if you look for it but it doesn't turn up where you might expect it. Quite often support for those policies turns up from the very people you claim that such policies are actually intended to oppose. I would even go so far as to say overwhelmingly so, if we exclude parents who oppose immigration because those parents imagine that less immigration will make it easier to get their kids out of their basements.

[Aeson]

My point was that support for Trump's absurd anti-illegal immigrants or even support for any broader anti-immigrant policies can be found if you look for it but it doesn't turn up where you might expect it. Quite often support for those policies turns up from the very people you claim that such policies are actually intended to oppose. I would even go so far as to say overwhelmingly so, if we exclude parents who oppose immigration because those parents imagine that less immigration will make it easier to get their kids out of their basements.

No, it turns up exactly where you expect it. Trump voters.

No one voted for Kamala thinking it would get rid of those pesky illegals.

[Geronimo]

No, it turns up exactly where you expect it. Trump voters.

No one voted for Kamala thinking it would get rid of those pesky illegals.

Great! and since a historically disproportionate portion of Trump's voters relative to other republican nominee voters were non-white and 1st and 2nd generation immigrants it becomes difficult for me to accept that those odious policies were dog whistles to get rid of those same voters.

You portray anti-immigration (legal or illegal) sentiment as driven by racism and xenophobia when the overwhelming majority is probably driven by unjustified assumptions of how immigration impacts their wages and employment opportunities. the one-percenters do not as a rule feel at all threatened by immigration

[Aeson]

You portray anti-immigration (legal or illegal) sentiment as driven by racism and xenophobia when the overwhelming majority is probably driven by unjustified assumptions of how immigration impacts their wages and employment opportunities. the one-percenters do not as a rule feel at all threatened by immigration

Logical fallacy again. I said Trump ran on a racist and xenophobic platform, and that he uses racist and xenophobic rhetoric. I haven't said all anti immigration sentiment is driven by racism.

[Aeson]

Great! and since a historically disproportionate portion of Trump's voters relative to other republican nominee voters were non-white and 1st and 2nd generation immigrants it becomes difficult for me to accept that those odious policies were dog whistles to get rid of those same voters.

Logical fallacy again. I said it was reasonable that given the closeness of the race that racism and misogyny could have covered the spread. What OTHER Trump voters were doing is irrelevant.

[Geronimo]

Logical fallacy again. I said it was reasonable that given the closeness of the race that racism and misogyny could have covered the spread. What OTHER Trump voters were doing is irrelevant.

How is it a logical fallacy for me to assert that racism and misogyny were not intrinsic to the Trump campaign?

Also if some voters voted for Harris because of her race or for voter perception of voting for Harris serving as a means to oppose misogyny would that be racism and misogyny?

How can you judge if racism or misogyny cover the spread, let alone assert that as fact?

[-Jrabbit]

As Trump and his press secretary keep reminding us, it's common sense.

[Geronimo]

Births and immigration are more common than old racists and misogynists becoming "woke".

Way to miss the point. If those old timers had been a majority misogynist and majority racist populace the changes under their watch along with their older now deceased compatriots would have been either non existent or in the wrong direction. Obviously the net power was in the away from racism and misogyny direction so these survivors from that era would not be expected to be net racist misogynistic voters today.

[Aeson]

no. the problem was that in every interview or townhall or debate, rather than enthusiasm about her platform what we got from Harris was this obvious reluctance to share platform information or much of anything really and a constant transparent effort to dodge seemingly every question on any topic, suggesting she didn't think we would like the answer. that could easily be a bigger problem for potential voters than the drivel that Trump constantly served up.

What is your exposure to DEI?
I certainly hope DEI is more things than the exposure I had to the program devised by our DEI consultants' team at my employer. My employer has dropped the DEI program but remains 100% opposed to discrimination against any protected class at any stage of any business relationship as they have always been prior to DEI and DEI consultants. Opposition to DEI cannot equate to support for discrimination for the same reasons that DEI advocates reminded us that opposition to discrimination did not equal DEI. DEI was a program that overtly insisted that elimination of personal bias in decisions would never be adequate. it could be that it was these consultants that gave DEI a bad name and it could be that it encompassed some worthy programs, but the bad apples have surely driven the backlash not nostalgia for discrimination to be back in the workplace.

It doesn't matter what DEI means to me, you, your company ... It's what it means to the law, public servants, Trump, and those who support his attack on everything DEI. Because my statement was about Trump's rhetoric and platform and how it is ableist, racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic.

Trump is constantly attacking everything DEI, wildly misrepresenting DEI, and claiming things that aren't DEI are DEI. He's firing people for being DEI hires or for fitting the DEI profile. He's lying to his supporters to get them frothing at the mouth against all things DEI. If you haven't met any of these people, I suggest you inform yourself by reading a bit of what they say at places like 4chan, theDonald, Fox News, X, comments on social media, etc.

[Aeson]

Way to miss the point. If those old timers had been a majority misogynist and majority racist populace the changes under their watch along with their older now deceased compatriots would have been either non existent or in the wrong direction. Obviously the net power was in the away from racism and misogyny direction so these survivors from that era would not be expected to be net racist misogynistic voters today.

It doesn't matter if they are net racist/misogynistic. They are clearly more racist/misogynistic than younger generations. They vote for Trump at much higher rates than younger generations do.

Why are you so invested in denying that Trump's win had anything to do with misogyny and racism? Trump clearly ran on a platform designed to appeal to misogynists, racists, xenophobes, ableists, etc. There are whole online communities devoted to these horrible things that clearly LOVE Trump for it. It's like your feelings got hurt by someone pointing that out.

[Aeson]

How is it a logical fallacy for me to assert that racism and misogyny were not intrinsic to the Trump campaign?

Because you aren't addressing the statement I made, but rather conjuring a strawman to argue against.

lso if some voters voted for Harris because of her race or for voter perception of voting for Harris serving as a means to oppose misogyny would that be racism and misogyny?

It could be. But given your earlier anecdote I wouldn't say that was without more information.

Simply being excited at the prospect of a racist/sexist glass ceiling being shattered for the first time is not racism/sexism. Quite the opposite.

How can you judge if racism or misogyny cover the spread, let alone assert that as fact?

It only takes a couple hundred thousand racist/misogynistic voters in swing states. If you really think there aren't that many, you live a very sheltered life.

[Geronimo]

It doesn't matter if they are net racist/misogynistic. They are clearly more racist/misogynistic than younger generations. They vote for Trump at much higher rates than younger generations do.

Why are you so invested in denying that Trump's win had anything to do with misogyny and racism? Trump clearly ran on a platform designed to appeal to misogynists, racists, xenophobes, ableists, etc. There are whole online communities devoted to these horrible things that clearly LOVE Trump for it. It's like your feelings got hurt by someone pointing that out.

I'm invested in it firstly because potential non white or female presidential candidates believing in the decisive role of misogyny or racism in elections depresses the numbers of those potential candidates who become actual candidates and that is more than enough reason for me because I see that the direct evidence that racism or misogyny were decisive in the election of Donald Trump is weak to non existent.

[Aeson]

I'm invested in it firstly because potential non white or female presidential candidates believing in the decisive role of misogyny or racism in elections depresses the numbers of those potential candidates who become actual candidates and that is more than enough reason for me because I see that the direct evidence that racism or misogyny were decisive in the election of Donald Trump is weak to non existent.

So your plan is to pretend there is no racism or sexism, not point out racism or sexism, not hold people accountable for supporting racist/sexist campaigns/actions, so women and minorities will be blissfully unaware of racism and sexism?

I'm sure women and minorities are well aware of the prevalence of racism and sexism. Because they experience it all the time.