Tavis Smiley: Black America could get on Trump train

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Mar 3, 2016.

  1. jkcerda, Mar 3, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016

    jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    now that is interesting.

    link
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...32/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-DHkyvJqv8g4bgHXVQbNgkg
     
  2. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #2
    I agree with Tavis. Trump's got the Howard factor, appearing on the show way back when and being a regular guy with the misfits on that show. Howard enjoys a large black audience who've listened.
     
  3. nfl46 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    #3
    GTFO! You have to be black to understand that no black person would vote for Donald Trump! Then again, the uncle toms would...but do they count... :/
     
  4. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
  5. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #5
    Tavis, nfl46, or me?
    --- Post Merged, Mar 3, 2016 ---
    Trump's down with the homey's, yo!
     
  6. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #6
    Why are you doing this to us, Fielding? What did we ever do to you to deserve such pain!
     
  7. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #7
    Tavis. What you're smoking kills brain cells.
     
  8. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #8
    It's gasoline and Mountain Dew, and you don't smoke it, you huff it. The cool kids call it Moon Blitz.
     
  9. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
  11. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #11
    Stop it! I can't get off this page !!!
     
  12. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #12
    They can get on the train but can they sit up front?
     
  13. Thomas Veil, Mar 5, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016

    Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #13
    Why does this topic make me think of a new product line for Donald?

    trump-crackers.jpg
     
  14. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #14
    Jon Huntsman mopped the floor with Romney's record in 2012, but then supported Romney after he got it.

    So the article is saying Republicans can do 180 degree turns and Democrats can't?

    Then call me a Republican, I'll sign up! The precedent has been set long before Election 2012 anyway.
     
  15. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #15
    They should have put up Huntsman in 2016. People forget those 180s in primary races because it's par for the course. Anyway Huntsman would look good compared to Trump and Cruz. He'd appeal to any Republicans who loathed Trump and disliked Freedom Caucus policies. Sort of a Kasich with better foreign policy chops.
     
  16. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #16
    Hey. I'm still on this page. Stuck here over the weekend ... :(
     
  17. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #17
    Hope you brought some snacks...
     
  18. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #18
    I guess you look down on Black people too. It must get lonely up there.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    Huntsman is far too liberal. If he wanted to stand against Hilary then perhaps he'd win.
     
  20. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #20
    Pity he didn't get the nomination in 2012.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 24, 2016 ---
    By who's standards? Anti-union yet union member Sean Hannity?
     
  21. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #21
    Maybe. He might have lost to Obama but he'd have got the name recognition for another go this year. What a season, 2016. Both pre-crowned "winners" have unlikeability scores worthy of Olympic medals, and the runners-up are seen as too extreme by partisans on opposite ends of the spectrum. Seems like a long time ago when a voter could honestly ponder voting for a Democrat or a Republican in presidential general elections.

    It used to be that most candidates and most voters on left and right were centrists in their left or right leanings. Now the whole spectrum has moved to the right so the fringe right is off the charts and the center left is the old Republicans. And what Sanders is talking about is not that far off what Eisenhower and Nixon portrayed as not unreasonable in discussing economic floors and social safety nets. Yet today it's seen as very very far left by Republicans who would have thought of it as just "the Democrats' platform" back in the 50s.

    But then there were far more living memories of the Great Depression, and it was still an era when people not only had empathy for each other's circumstance (not least for all having rubbed elbows with each other during WWII) but also understood the logic of "no wall high enough" when the gap between rich and poor grows too great.

    The so-called Great Recession we have been trying to call "over and done with" didn't hurt the top end of the USA enough to put common sense back in the Republicans' platform, but it did smash the faith of the 99% in government's ability to check the power of multinational corporations. That and the loss of jobs for the bottom end of a middle class are twin forces that will eventually rip the rest of the right wing voters away from the GOP if they don't modify their economic and fiscal platforms (which are curiously malleable on the subject of debt whenever it comes to putting chips down on another war somewhere).

    Some of those right-leaning voters are gone to Trump or Cruz in 2016 in a sort of Hail Mary effort to get some jobs, but neither of those two can reinstate isolationist policy and garner a blitz of blue-collar jobs in the era of global trade. We're too used to cheap goods and we don't have the consumer power to buy $25 bath towels. What jobs will they get back?

    Sure there's a chicken-egg question on minimum wages for existing work here, but the questions and costs are bigger than that. There's the environmental pollution we have conveniently also exported along with the cost of expensive labor.

    We go nuts when a hazmat-laden train derails here today, but bringing back industry that we put to China decades ago means doubling down on both infrastructure wear and tear plus the environmental problems. It's not as simple as Trump and Cruz like to make it sound. Where would you like the new power plants and the huge new landfills situated? Maybe the new jobs are landfill sorters, picking out the stuff can be broken down more? Who will do these jobs? The immigrants the candidates promise to deport? Or "all-American" kids? Who will heal their cancers? We lost a lot more than jobs when we exported industry.

    We need to get back to the center to talk about the country's future. Huntsman v Clinton would not have been a bad way to do that because they're both sane centrists. I suppose I'm counting on the progressive Democrats in Congress to weigh in more strongly than they did during Obama's presidency. Sanders has made that fairly likely, since the progressives no doubt observed Clinton's shifts leftward during the primaries. Believe it they'll try to hold her feet to the fire.

    Since Huntsman's not in it, and Kasich seems unlikely, the election will probably go to Clinton. The country is not as right in general elections as in primaries, and the Republicans still don't get that. The Democrats do. Say what you like about superdelegates, the Democrats learned something in the thrashings of 1972 and it was about electability, and they did something about it, and it works. Now if they could only stop relying on the Hollywood principle of the sequel, and bring some bench to the game, I could die happy!

    Whether Clinton can make good on her promise to take a "pragmatic" approach to change and actually get some of it done remains to be seen. Meanwhile the gridlock continues to take its toll on all the things that make for a resilient, capable nation. Our infrastructure, renewable energy, steps to combat climate change, lowering the interest and profit components of education costs, ensuring social safety net continuation...

    While we argue over debt, we plan the next war and ignore the social costs of the last one. Pretty insane. I'm not even sure Clinton wouldn't go there as well.
     

Share This Page