Slashdot Mirror

Roger Stone is indicted for blatantly lying before congress and witness tampering.

That would be fair if the law was applied equally, but when are they going to arrest any Democrat for blatantly lying before Congress about running arms to al-Qaeda and Mexican drug lords, giving $billions to Iran, having the GCHQ spy on the opposing party's candidates, or any of a half dozen other scandals that would have gotten anyone other than America's First Black President impeached and possibly hanged for treason, or "witness tampering" Michael Hastings, FBI Anon, the DNC's "Russian hacker", and several pizzagate investigators and sources?

There has been two years of noise about possible Russian interference in the election because Donald Trump did business with the Russians as part of an FBI sting operation that got a Russian bank sanctioned. When are they going to talk about Qatari interference in the election? Do you remember the "Safe Space" campaign a few years ago or the appearance of "Social Justice" "feminists" who never badmouthed Islam but tried to tell you that Hamas was a feminist group? That was them. Have you heard of Common Core? That was also a Qatari operation by the same people who put Jamal Khashoggi at the Washington Post.

Maybe they can discuss whether NYT editorial writers are racist or not without reading the tweets? That's what the news reminds me of, anyhow.

And yes, I'd think that playing political news ought to scare people off, too.

You said "Its long been a tactic of the right to equate anyone who expresses disagreement with their extremism as extremists themselves", which was clearly the portion of the comment I was replying to

So, if that is the part you were taking issue with, then what non-extremism on the right do you think I was equating to extremism of the left? Do you think labeling liberals as fascists is not extremist?

Meanwhile, lets continue to examine how extremism has become mainstream in the right. For example, birtherism. They elected the guy who made his entry into the party by pushing birtherism. Not enough? Lets look at a "well respected" journal of mainstream conservatism - the National Review. Dinesh D'Souza, pardoned felon, and ridiculously over the top troll, is on the masthead. And the magazine's senior editor is the author of the book "liberal fascism."

But there's undeniably a tendency of the modern Left to misuse the label for dramatic effect.

No. You are just ignorant of history. People just like you were saying the same shit about germany in 1934. Its not like the nazis appeared fully-formed and gassing jews out of nowhere. We have been here before. The NYT even ran an op-ed rationalizing nazis as just having "economic anxiety."

We are stealing brown babies from aslyum seekers and then shipping the parents back to their countries without their kids. And in response trump's approval rating with republicans has soared. How much more nazi do we have to get for you?

Not enough for you? This guy summarized even more studies: Donald Trump won the GOP primary and the presidency because campaigning on whiteness-first messaging still has potency in the 21st century.

How does anything in your long post detract from the evidence that economic anxiety of white Americans as they lose their cultural dominance was a major factor in Trump's election victory? You seem to only bolster this theory. One of the articles you linked to makes an odd argument that economic anxiety and cultural anxiety are inherently different. One primary source of white American economic anxiety is the loss of their cultural dominance which fuels white privilege.

So your statistics about the demographics of all voters who voted for Trump and Clinton show us nothing about the factors which led to his victory.

Oh, that was just a tiny little taste. You want some hard core facts? Buckle the fuck up.

"The individual data do not suggest that those who view Trump favorably are confronting abnormally high economic distress, by conventional measures of employment and income," ...

"People living in zip codes with disproportionately high shares of white residents are significantly and robustly more likely to view Trump favorably," he writes. "Those living in zip codes with overall diversity that is low relative to their commuting zone are also far more likely to view Trump favorably." Put another way: If you're in the whitest suburb in your area, you're likelier to back Trump. ...

Areas with more manufacturing are significantly less likely to support Trump. An increase in the level of manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007 predicted higher Trump support — which is the opposite of what you'd expect, given the narrative around this campaign.
Donald Trump's supporters are LESS likely to be affected by trade and immigration, not more

You can ask just one simple question to find out whether someone likes Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton: Is Barack Obama a Muslim? If they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton.

That’s more accurate than asking people if it’s harder to move up the income ladder than it was for their parents (54 percent), whether they oppose trade deals (66 percent), or if they think the economy is worse now than last year (81 percent). It’s even more accurate than asking them if they are Republican (87 percent).
The easiest way to guess if someone supports Trump? Ask if Obama is a Muslim.

Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class were more likely to prefer Clinton over Trump. Besides partisan affiliation, it was cultural anxiety—feeling like a stranger in America, supporting the deportation of immigrants, and hesitating about educational investment—that best predicted support for Trump.
It Was Cultural Anxiety That Drove White, Working-Class Voters to Trump

A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety

Not enough for you? This guy summarized even more studies: Donald Trump won the GOP primary and the presidency because campaigning on whiteness-first messaging still has potency in the 21st century.

I'm not the GP, but here's one answer describing life in Sweden from an American perspective and how much less stressful it is for so many reasons.

The domain has changed, not tttthreads.com anymore, but still works fine:
https://threadreaderapp.com/

Not limited to 25 messages, not controlled by twitter.