Hacker News Reader

Comment by MisterBastahrd | Hacker News Reader

I've yet to meet a Trump voter who didn't meet that criteria. Just because people don't like to be described in a certain way doesn't mean that it doesn't describe them. Trump didn't win because of any sort of liberal catechism. He won because the media has done a bang up job of scaring the crap out of the average citizen about immigration and terrorism while pimping his brand because he's a perverse curiosity in a suit.

View on HN

This says more about you than about the American public in general. My brother and his wife, and many of the people with whom I work, are not "disgusting misogynistic racist pigs". Actually I know many more Trump voters than disgusting racist pigs.

The media really couldn't help it, however. Every president from here on out will be a reality show star. Look for Chris Christie to get a show as soon as he gets booted out of the cabinet for another ethical lapse. Chelsea and Ivanka will both start new shows (perhaps together?) in about a decade.

Nice. You quoted something I didn't say. Twice.

That says a lot more about you than it does about me.

'scarmig: ...the large majority of people seem to be taking from this experience the learning that Trump voters are all disgusting misogynistic racist pigs...

you: I've yet to meet a Trump voter who didn't meet that criteria.

Are you confused by the English language? Is threaded conversation a new concept for you?

Sometimes, cognitive dissonance catches people off guard. MisterBastahrd has just experienced it.

> My brother and his wife, and many of the people with whom I work, are not "disgusting misogynistic racist pigs".

I am sure they aren't (well actually I don't know, and as you rightly convey, I obviously CAN'T know just from their pro-Trump vote) but would you agree that people that voted for Trump have to be at least OK with being represented by one "disgusting misogynistic racist pig(s)" without themselves being one? … I really don't want to imply that all or even the majority of Trump voters are bad people (because I don't know any due to not being from the US) but they sure seem OK with having a repulsive person as their prime representative?

Are you suggesting that there were no reasons to dislike Hillary? Or that misogyny and racism live on a plane above all other issues? Because in the end, the people only had two choices in this election.

No, sorry I did not want to suggest either of those things. There are reasons to dislike Hillary I am sure, and voting for her would in my opinion imply "being OK" with these reasons. I was really just looking for input, not making a point.

That's the trouble in a two party (Winner-takes-all AKA first-past-the-post) system is that you can never tell who genuinely approves of Trump, and who merely disapproves of Clinton.

Would you be OK with being represented by a crook, without yourself being one?

Your point with the fptp system makes a lot of sense. I didn't think about these implications since where I am from we have a pluralistic political system. Thanks for the insight!

And no, I would not be OK with being represented by a crook. If you are asking for my personal opinion in case of HRC/DT I'd still would have preferred her downsides over his though. Good thing I didn't have to chose I guess.

Trump is Br'er Rabbit, not a pig. The statements he made that have received the most opprobrium, were made precisely to receive that opprobrium. He correctly calculated that opprobrium, not the statements themselves, would gain him enough votes to win the election. Trump got far more votes from people who wished to reject the standard media narrative than from race-motivated one-issue voters.

The statements themselves may well be racist, but racist speech is a different thing than racist action. People who don't mind appearing to the weak-minded as racists may well actually be racists. However they are different sorts of racists than politicians like Richard Nixon and the Clintons who have destroyed minority lives and communities for political gain.

Children may be excused for only thinking about surface meanings, but after one has voted in several elections, it's time to put away childish things.

I know some Trump supporters who are neither racist nor homophobic nor misogynistic. I also know Hillary voters who will drop the "N" word talking about blacks. You can't really divine who a person is by who they vote for.

Yeah, but there are strong statistical correlations between party affiliation and personal/moral views. Example: Trump voters generally support repealing abortion. They also are heavily white, and either old. or young and poorly educated.

But none of those stats said they're racist. It is your own opinion. You're judging them to be racists, even though the stats didn't say so.

Please point out where I said anything about homophobia, racism, or misogyny.

Wait... you can't. Nevermind.

And yes, I CAN divine what a person is like by who they vote for when the person they voted for is a ridiculous caricature with zero understanding about how any of this works. If you wouldn't go to a faith healer to get treated for a serious medical condition that required surgery, then why in the hell would you go to a completely unqualified, inexperienced buffoon to run the country?

> You can't really divine who a person is by who they vote for.

Can you elaborate a bit on this? Obviously you can't get to know EVERYTHING a person is just from what they vote for every 4 years but I always felt like you can't vote for Trump and not at least be OK with his sexism, misogyny and yes, racism. What am I missing (not being snarky here, not even from the US)

...and you can't vote for Hillary without being OK with obstructing democracy, corporate bailouts, and welfare handouts. At least that's how a lot of people felt who didn't want to vote for Hillary. (I preferred her to Trump, personally.)

People have different priorities. It can be really hard to care about various isms when your life has been borderline misery for a half decade or more.

I guess this is true (and another comment implied it has a lot to do with the first past the post system) … It seems just like a lot of other people it's hard for me to be neutral/objective in this when I care more about some issues (Trump's "negatives") than others (Clinton's)

Thanks for your input.

Out of curiosity, how many have you met? I have relatives and in-laws I assume to have voted for Trump. I have friends and acquaintances I assume to have voted for neither major party candidate. But I don't know many Trump voters. Nor, I think, would be I be likely to: Clinton took 94% of my precinct, Trump 2.5%, barely ahead of Stein at 2%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com