When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
First of all the interview where I said I would move was in London and was said in jest. Not that anyone needs more than a headline to count something as official news. Anyone saying pack your bags is just as disgusting as anyone who voted for this racist homophobic openly disrespectful woman abuser.
Like the rest of us I am grieving today. My heart is in a million pieces. My heart breaks for my niece and my friends who are pregnant bringing children into the world right now.
Like everyone else I am horrified that people believed these bumper sticker slogans filled with hate he spewed. People who voted for him you are weak. You are not just misinformed. You didn't even attempt information.
You say lock her up and you know something about the word email but what was in the emails? You have no clue. Well I'll tell you if you were able to read this far through the holes in your sheet. They said nothing incriminating. Nothing.
She dedicated her entire life to public service and got our children Heath care and education without discrimination. he didn't pay his workers. Started a fake college. Ripped people off. Never paid his taxes and sexually assaulted women and on and on She would have taken care of us. I personally would have had to pay higher taxes. All the celebrities backing her would have.
People asked how much I was paid to stand with her. Nothing. None of us were paid a dollar. We would have had to pay a lot more because we are fortunate enough to make a high income. But we all wanted to do it to take care of the people in need. She was fighting to take care of you kicking and screaming babies.
Yelling about emails you know nothing about and not liking her clothes or her hair she wanted to protect you even you. Well you've gotten what you asked for and now you can watch the sky open up. Literally. I am furious. I cry for her and for all the smart people I love who know what's right and I cry for you people who fell for shiny hats and reality catch phrases. She would have protected you. Today we grieve tomorrow we begin again.
Trump won because college-educated Americans are out of touch Higher education is isolated, insular and liberal. Average voters aren't.
By Charles Camosy November 9 at 8:56 AM
Charles C. Camosy is an associate professor at Fordham University, and the author of "Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for A New Generation."
A group of Penn State students marched through campus this week imploring voters to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.
As the reality of President-elect Donald Trump settled in very early Wednesday morning, MSNBCs Chris Hayes summed up an explanation common to many on the left: The Republican nominee pulled ahead thanks to old-fashioned American racism.
But the attempt to make Trumps victory about racism appears to be at odds with what actually happened on Election Day. Consider the following facts.
Twenty-nine percent of Latinos voted for Trump, per exit polls. Remarkably, despite the near-ubiquitous narrative that Trump would have deep problems with this demographic given his comments and position on immigration, this was a higher percentage of those who voted for GOP nominee Mitt Romney in 2012. Meanwhile, African Americans did not turn out to vote against Trump. In fact, Trump received a higher percentage of African American votes than Romney did.
And while many white voters deeply disliked Trump, they disliked Democrat Hillary Clinton even more. Of those who had negative feelings about both Trump and Clinton, Trump got their votes by a margin of 2 to 1. Votes for Trump seemed to signal a rejection of the norms and values for which Clinton stood more than an outright embrace of Trump.
The most important divide in this election was not between whites and non-whites. It was between those who are often referred to as educated voters and those who are described as working class voters.
The reality is that six in 10 Americans do not have a college degree, and they elected Donald Trump. College-educated people didnt just fail to see this coming they have struggled to display even a rudimentary understanding of the worldviews of those who voted for Trump. This is an indictment of the monolithic, insulated political culture in the vast majority our colleges and universities.
As a college professor, I know that there are many ways in which college graduates simply know more about the world than those who do not have such degrees. This is especially true with some exceptions, of course when it comes to hard facts learned in science, history and sociology courses.
But I also know that that those with college degrees again, with some significant exceptions dont necessarily know philosophy or theology. And they have especially paltry knowledge about the foundational role that different philosophical or theological claims play in public thought compared with what is common to college campuses. In my experience, many professors and college students dont even realize that their views on political issues rely on a particular philosophical or theological stance.
Higher education in the United States, after all, is woefully monolithic in its range of worldviews. In 2014, some 60 percent of college professors identified as either liberal or far-left, an increase from 42 percent identifying as such in 1990. And while liberal college professors outnumber conservatives 5-to-1, conservatives are considerably more common within the general public. The world of academia is, therefore, different in terms of political temperature than the rest of society, and what is common knowledge and conventional wisdom among Americas campus dwellers cant be taken for granted outside the campus gates.
While some of the political differences between educated and working-class voters is based on a dispute over hard facts, the much broader and more foundational disagreements are about norms and values. They turn on first principles grounded in the very different intuitions and stories which animate very different political cultures. Such disagreements cannot be explained by the fact that college-educated voters know some facts which non-college educated voters do not. They are about something far more fundamental.
Think about the sets of issues that are often at the core of the identity of the working-class folks who elected Trump: religion, personal libertys relationship with government, gender, marriage, sexuality, prenatal life and gun rights. Intuition and stories guide most working-class communities on these issues. With some exceptions, those professorial sorts who form the cultures of our colleges and universities have very different intuition and stories. And the result of this divide has been to produce an educated class with an isolated, insular political culture.
Religion in most secular institutions, for instance, is at best thought of as an important sociological phenomenon to understand but is very often criticized as an inherently violent, backward force in our culture, akin to belief in fairies and dragons. Professors are less religious than the population as a whole. Most campus cultures have strictly (if not formally) enforced dogmatic views about the nature of gender, sexual orientation, a womans right to choose abortion, guns and the role of the state as primary agent of social change. If anyone disagrees with these dogmatic positions they risk being marginalized as ignorant, bigoted, fanatical or some other dismissive label.
Sometimes the college-educated find themselves so unable to understand a particular working-class point of view that they will respond to those perspectives with shocking condescension. Recall that President Obama, in the midst of the 2012 election cycle, suggested that job losses were the reason working-class voters were bitterly clinging to guns or religion or antipathy to people who arent like them. The religious themselves, meanwhile, likely do not chalk their faith up to unhappy economic prospects, and they probably find it hard to connect with politicians who seem to assume such.
Thus todays college graduates are formed by a campus culture that leaves them unable to understand people with unfamiliar or heterodox views on guns, abortion, religion, marriage, gender and privilege. And that same culture leads such educated people to either label those with whom they disagree as bad people or reduce their stated views on these issues as actually being about something else, as in Obamas case. Most college grads in this culture are simply never forced to engage with or seriously consider professors or texts which could provide a genuine, compelling alternative view.
For decades now, U.S. colleges and universities have quite rightly been trying to become more diverse when it comes to race and gender. But this election highlights the fact that our institutions of higher education should use similar methods to cultivate philosophical, theological and political diversity.
These institutions should consider using quotas in hiring that help faculties and administrations more accurately reflect the wide range of norms and values present in the American people. There should be systemwide attempts to have texts assigned in classes written by people from intellectually underrepresented groups. There should be concerted efforts to protect political minorities from discrimination and marginalization, even if their views are unpopular or uncomfortable to consider.
The goal of such changes would not be to convince students that their political approaches are either correct or incorrect. The goal would instead be educational: to identify and understand the norms, values, first principles, intuitions and stories which have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education. This would better equip college graduates to engage with the world as it is, including with their fellow citizens.
The alternative, a reduction of all disagreement to racism, bigotry and ignorance in addition to being wrong about its primary source will simply make the disagreement far more personal, entrenched and vitriolic. And it wont make liberal values more persuasive to the less educated, as Trump victory demonstrates.
It is time to do the hard work of forging the kind of understanding that moves beyond mere dismissal to actual argument. Todays election results indicate that our colleges and universities are places where this hard work is particularly necessary.
I would also ask all the members here to read about the increasing cases of discrimination towards immigrants in Great Britain and sincerely hope that you guys find a way to avoid repeating those mistakes. I've always considered your nation's success is in great part due to the fact that you're a nation of immigrants and that fact has always kept your economy competitive with any other one in the world.
Rafa,
We are a nation of immigrants. And in my youth America was described as a melting pot of people and ideas. But the idea of a melting pot does not serve politicians on the left as well as promoting factions to quibble with each other does. To excite people to vote, they convince them there are enemies everywhere. They have promoted the notion of "multiculturalism", meaning that you prioritize whatever culture you identify with above melting into America. It is a notion that is created to keep divisions between people and to cause them to maintain ideas of separatism above unity. Over the last 30 years this has become a real problem. A lack of assimilation into the cultural norms of their new adoptive countries has been the problem with migrant cultures in England, Germany, The Netherlands, and has caused huge problems in France. If you go to a new country, not as a guest, but to become a son or daughter of that nation, it is important to love it and embrace it as your own. We don't ask that people forget their heritage or their customs and religions, but rather that they don't choose to subjugate us under the standards of a land and a life they chose to abandon.
I have adopted a child. We have our own rules and standards and customs. We do not have prostitution, drugs, molestation, physical abuse in our home. We go to church sometimes. We don't yell in our house and we don't throw things or break things. We do not strike each other. She was adopted into our home and is bound by our standards and rules and customs. We do not change our standards to reflect the norms of her previous home. If she was a temporary guest and not adopted then we would expect her to be respectful of our home and would not expect her to take on our values as her own. But as she has chosen to become a part of this family, she will be accepted as if she has always been with us, born with us. She will be held to the same standards and loved and respected equally. I feel the same about legal immigrants becoming Americans and becoming adopted into our citizenry.
If our country is so nice and their so bad it would cause them to leave it permanently, why would we then encourage them to recreate the inferior environment here? I'm looking at France and the debacle caused by allowing autonomous Islamic sectors governed by Sharia law instead of liberté, égalité, et fraternité.They were not encouraged to become French and to add a little of themselves to the country to make it better. But rather to bring all of the big things that made their old country destitute, dangerous, and repressed. Why leave Algeria if they have the best way of life? It was not to become proud French citizens. It was to take from France and the French people, to steal and abuse the kindness offered to them.
Trump's supporters are not with him because they are racist. And he himself hasn't said anything racist. That racist stuff is all political hacks trying to drum up opposition by looking for buttons to push with simple-minded Democrat followers. Trump wants to stop lawbreakers and dangerous people from crossing into our country. We should know the name of everyone coming in and what their purpose is. Just like those in the Republica Dominicana try to keep the Haitians from swarming over your own border. Simple as that. Would you think it was a good idea to completely open your border to Haiti? I think it would be bad for your country to do so. Not because I hate Haitians, but because border controls are necessary for any country's security.
Progressives didn’t just target minorities for voter outreach — they gave them a leg up over whites for influential government positions.
Documents released by WikiLeaks show the administration prioritized Muslims, African-Americans and Latinos — referred to as “Hispanic names” — when choosing top government officials.
Both in public and behind closed-doors, progressives made white, working-class Americans a low priority.
After Tuesday’s shocking result, Reason columnist Robby Soave wrote, “The left sorted everyone into identity groups and then told the people in the poorly-educated-white-male identity group that that’s the only bad one. It mocked the members of this group mercilessly.”
...
White, working-class voters, [Bill] Clinton tried to explain to Democratic elites, felt left behind.
“They think the political system is rigged against them, which it is to some extent, and they think it doesn’t make any difference anyway, so they want to vote for whoever they think will raise the most hell.”
We are a nation of immigrants. And in my youth America was described as a melting pot of people and ideas. But the idea of a melting pot does not serve politicians on the left as well as promoting factions to quibble with each other does. To excite people to vote, they convince them there are enemies everywhere. They have promoted the notion of "multiculturalism", meaning that you prioritize whatever culture you identify with above melting into America. It is a notion that is created to keep divisions between people and to cause them to maintain ideas of separatism above unity. Over the last 30 years this has become a real problem. A lack of assimilation into the cultural norms of their new adoptive countries has been the problem with migrant cultures in England, Germany, The Netherlands, and has caused huge problems in France. If you go to a new country, not as a guest, but to become a son or daughter of that nation, it is important to love it and embrace it as your own. We don't ask that people forget their heritage or their customs and religions, but rather that they don't choose to subjugate us under the standards of a land and a life they chose to abandon.
I have adopted a child. We have our own rules and standards and customs. We do not have prostitution, drugs, molestation, physical abuse in our home. We go to church sometimes. We don't yell in our house and we don't throw things or break things. We do not strike each other. She was adopted into our home and is bound by our standards and rules and customs. We do not change our standards to reflect the norms of her previous home. If she was a temporary guest and not adopted then we would expect her to be respectful of our home and would not expect her to take on our values as her own. But as she has chosen to become a part of this family, she will be accepted as if she has always been with us, born with us. She will be held to the same standards and loved and respected equally. I feel the same about legal immigrants becoming Americans and becoming adopted into our citizenry.
If our country is so nice and their so bad it would cause them to leave it permanently, why would we then encourage them to recreate the inferior environment here? I'm looking at France and the debacle caused by allowing autonomous Islamic sectors governed by Sharia law instead of liberté, égalité, et fraternité.They were not encouraged to become French and to add a little of themselves to the country to make it better. But rather to bring all of the big things that made their old country destitute, dangerous, and repressed. Why leave Algeria if they have the best way of life? It was not to become proud French citizens. It was to take from France and the French people, to steal and abuse the kindness offered to them.
Trump's supporters are not with him because they are racist. And he himself hasn't said anything racist. That racist stuff is all political hacks trying to drum up opposition by looking for buttons to push with simple-minded Democrat followers. Trump wants to stop lawbreakers and dangerous people from crossing into our country. We should know the name of everyone coming in and what their purpose is. Just like those in the Republica Dominicana try to keep the Haitians from swarming over your own border. Simple as that. Would you think it was a good idea to completely open your border to Haiti? I think it would be bad for your country to do so. Not because I hate Haitians, but because border controls are necessary for any country's security.
As a legal immigrant living in this country I fully agree with this.
I am really surprised by the anger and fear expressed by my liberal co-workers. They are more afraid of Trump supporters than ISIS terrorists.
11-10-2016, 08:28 AM
0
