Stop Blaming Trump For The Way Your Friends And Loved Ones Are! (He's The Conduit; Not The Creator)

Without question Donald Trump is a cult like figure. His supporters certainly act like cultists seemingly following his every lead and defending him vociferously and blindly. It appears they have not only sipped the orange kool-aid but began mainlining it. However...


The truth is that it is not Trump who is leading his supporters around by the nose, but it is they who are leading him...sorta.


People all over this country have spent the better part of the last four years (or more) wringing their hands and wallowing in consternation regarding some of their family and friends' seemingly subjugated support and affection for Trump. These people have been searching for why the people they love and admire have attached themselves to a figure who is obviously bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic, smarmy and shady. They are perplexed why people whom they always seen as intelligent and thoughtful give such full throated support to a man who is un-empathetic, rash and vulgar.


Well, the answer is simple but quite unpalatable. I say this because it (the answer) is as clear as the fact Trump is not a fine healthy physical specimen as he claims, but it is also clear people don't want to confront the answer.


The reality is Trump's supporters don't see his bigotry, crassness, lack of empathy and lack of decency as bugs but as the features.


What all of us anti-Trumpers have had to come to grips with is people we like, love and respect aren't as tolerable, open-minded or immune to irrational dislike (if not hatred) as we wanted to believe they were. And, the truth of the matter is most of us on some level knew that.


As an African-American in red state America I feel I can speak on this some. I have always heard people say things that I found to be wrong or insensitive or just blatantly offensive. People have said things to me that are unquestionably racist. But, of course, they said it in a manner that it didn't appear to be directed at me. So, I ashamedly often let it slide.


Also, I fell into the trap of believing that since certain people liked me or treated me well they can't be that racist or bigoted.


Other folks either felt the way I did or fell into another trap. They assumed things about their family members, friends and co-workers because of their attitude or personality. But, those assumptions were based on shallow conversations and perceptions. They had never really had deep conversations about race, gender and sexuality that likely would've revealed some things. And, sure, as I did, they knew people were Conservatives or right-wing but except for Uncle Delmar and the old curmudgeon at work they didn't realize some of them were aligned with Pat Buchanan and others see Buchanan as too leftwing.


So, when reality tv star and real estate "mogul" Donald J. Trump (the "j" stands for jive talking man baby) came along spewing his birtherism bullshit or came sliding down that Trump Tower escalator announcing his presidential candidacy many people in this country saw a mainstream figure saying all the things they felt.


It is easy to believe Trump cast some sort of spell over your mama or your Aunt June or your best friend or your co-worker whom you talked to every day, but the fact is Trump didn't brainwash them. They created him!


Now, let me be clear Fox News has cultivated this environment for over two decades. They were literally the pushers shoving heroin in front of the addicts. But, the addicts are the ones who began frequenting the trap house making it lucrative. Fox News just made sure the trap house was always well stocked in smack and needles. And, still does.


So, while Trump and his presidency have been predictably cruel, inept and buffoonish laying this subjugation at his feet is actually unfair and disingenuous. Donald Trump didn't make your dad or your boss or your cousin Stephanie racist, homophobic or misogynistic or at the very least supporting a person or a political party whom are these things tangentially implying these things aren't deal breakers. They were already this way!


Trump didn't create his base, which is just the Republican base. We should be crystal clear about that. Trump is not the catalyst for their bigotry, xenophobia and myopia. He is merely the conduit.


Some of us always knew these feelings were present within people. Again, if we think about it there were things said, social media posts and likes and responses to certain events that gave us insight. We largely just chose to overlook it.


Other people were genuinely surprised and still haven't reconciled it. I feel for those people. Few things can be more deflating than being an inclusive open-minded person and having the epiphany, "Oh my god! Mom is an effin bigot! Sean, whose been my best friend for 15 years, is really a virulent misogynist and xenophobe!"


But, if they didn't know, they should've known. The signs are always there.


And, for those loved ones who really aren't bigots or racists but continue to support Trump despite his nonsense and demagoguery it really is not that baffling. Likely their stances on social issues and conservative principles outweigh everything else. That just means they are craven. I am not sure that is better.


Look, we all have loved ones we look at as decent and moral; yet, we cannot understand how they support an amoral cretin like Trump. How does someone who claims to be Christian and Jesus loving so enthusiastically support a man who is as promiscuous and as vulgar as Trump? Easy. Just look at the Supreme Court. Peep out these new abortion laws in red states. See the transgender military ban. Trump can slip his little mushroom into a different porn chick every day and twice on Sundays. As long as he's stacking the judiciary with fundamentalist rightwing judges and allowing "Christian law" to infiltrate secular law (who cares about separation of church and state, right) they don't care! Tell me I'm wrong! I dare ya!


Oh, and let's not bullshit here. Some of the "decent" folk...many of them, in fact, are good with the racism and xenophobia too.


I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but the truth is the truth. It would be beyond easy to believe Trump has some hold over his base. It would be more comforting to believe that. However, that is not reality. Trump is literally a reflection of his supporters.


And, honestly, I don't have any words of wisdom about how to deal with it. Personally, I just try to avoid politics with loved ones who are Trump supporters. Of course, I'll forever be side-eying them and keeping in mind what time it always is.


Some people have either stopped talking to me or severely limited contact. Yes, it's hurtful but at the end of the day it's whatevs. It reveals a lot about them. The mask has been ripped off.


Regardless how you decide to deal with these people just acknowledge the reality. Stop blaming Trump and confront who and what these people are. Don't let them nor yourself off the hook by pretending Trump is Jim Jones and has cast a spell over your mama. Accept the fact your mama has serious flaws and figure out how you are going to handle it.


Stop coddling Trumpsters and being quasi-apologists for their bigotry or complicity with bigotry. You are not doing them, yourself or your country any favors.

BBC Exposes Ben Shapiro And The Right's Specious Arguments

Ben Shapiro, the internet dark web darlings and a significant portion of the rightwing fancy themselves as the "real" intellectuals of the political landscape. They purport they are the only ones interested in the exchange of dialogue in the marketplace of ideas. And, they really love to tout how it is they who are truly tolerant of others ideas while it's the leftwing who is intolerant and shun actual adversarial debate.


Now, if you have ever heard Shapiro and his ilk speak or have had the pleasure of discussing anything political with the average rightwinger, you know all of these claims are unadulterated pure utter bullshit!


Recently, Ben Shapiro appeared on the BBC ostensibly to promote his new book "decrying" the uncivil rancorous discourse that pervades our current political landscape. A British journalist named Andrew Neal conducted the interview. It should be duly noted Neal is an arch Conservative borderline far rightwinger. This will be key to the rest of this tale.


Before I go further here is a link to the interview if you would like to watch before reading my analysis. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E


So, Neal began the interview by asking Shapiro about the new abortion law in Georgia that essentially would jail a woman for up to 10 years if she gets an abortion and 30 years if she goes out of state. Neal asked if the law was excessive and appeared to be taking America back to "the dark ages".


Immediately Shapiro became triggered. Instead of answering the question he asked Neal if he was "an objective journalist or an opinion journalist". Neal responded, "I'm a journalist who asks questions." (Brilliant response!) Shapiro then became whiny saying Neal sounded like an opinion journalist.


Benjamin next began berating Neal for being a "leftist" and calling the pro-life movement barbaric. (Neal actually never used the word barbaric and he never referred to pro-life movement by any other similar term. Shapiro did what rightwingers often do. He attempted to strawman Neal and intentionally mischaracterize what was said so he can make himself and his ilk look like victims. However, Neal [again a rightwinger] didn't fall for the bullshit and stayed on course.)


Responding to Shapiro's obvious distortion of his question Neal said if Shapiro was pro-choice he would be asking adversarial questions against the pro-choice movement. Benjamin got even more in his feelings retorting he doubted Neal would, again called him a leftist and demanded he just admit he's a liberal and a leftist activist. Neal replied with the best response of this entire Shapiro whinefest which was, "Mr. Shapiro, if you only knew the ridiculousness of that statement, you surely wouldn't have made it." (Indeed! Again, Neal is a rightwinger. The dude is the Sean Hannity of the United Kingdom except he's not a dumb vapid grifter.)


Well, seeing that line of questioning was going nowhere Neal proceeded to some comments lil Benny had made about President Obama after his 2012 State of the Union address. Shapiro said Obama's speech was "fascist". Neal asked him if that wasn't a bit hyperbolic and inflammatory. Benjamin by this point in the interview was beyond steamed stuttered, "It was wrong and bad." Neal replied, "Well, there are plenty of things that are 'wrong and bad', but it doesn't mean they're fascist. A flustered Benny stammered and then said, "Well, I suppose that's right."


(Lol. He "supposes that's right". This was another example of Shapiro's tactics being exposed. He and a lot of rightwingers love to accuse the left of being hyperbolic and inflammatory, but as often is the case it's they who are hyperbolic and inflammatory and projecting out of their asses. Shapiro, in fact, did say Obama's speech was fascist when it was nowhere near. However, he had never been truly checked on it and when he was he got pissed and wilted.)


Next, Neal mentioned Benjamin's inane statement saying "Jews who voted for Obama are Jews in name only. They're jinos...They should turn in their badges.


Needless to say, Benny had a damn near meltdown. First, he obfuscated and attempted to lie, but Neal read back to him chapter and verse what he said. Then, clearly rattled Shapiro made a pathetic attempt to justify his statement. When that failed he flaunted his piousness demeaning Obama supporting Jews as not taking Judaism seriously like he does and basically implied anyone who doesn't believe exactly as he believes is less Jewish than him.


(Oh, Benjamin. Smh. He really showed his ass here. He said the quiet parts aloud and exposed religious fundamentalism for exactly what it is, which is unabashed hypocrisy and unfettered intolerance. Seriously, he sounded no different than any radical Islamic fundamentalist. Change Judaism to Islam and he sounded like ISIS.


Who the hell is this 30-something year old dude who sounds like he's still in puberty to dictate who can and can't be Jewish. Eff dna or parental lineage Ben Shapiro is the arbiter of whom is and is not Jewish.


And, he's so transparent with his demagoguery. Just like most evangelicals he believes if you don't vote Republican you're inherently anti-God. Unbelievable stupidity.)


Oh, we're not done. Andrew Neal brought Shapiro's book back up and questioned him if his own rhetoric has added to the political animosity that he claims to lament in the book. Of course, Shapiro reacts as if that is an absurd assertion. Neal then brings up some tweets Benny posted about Palestinians. And, this pos snowflake went into a full fledged meltdown.


Shapiro once tweeted, "Arabs only like to bomb crap and live in open sewage." (Nothing racist there. Keep it moving. Right, Benjamin.)


In fairness to Shapiro he did clarify he didn't mean all Arabs, which he was quick to point out to Neal. He said he meant Hamas. Problem is later in the tweet thread he did directly disparage Palestinians and implied their evil and wretched because they voted Hamas into power (but, of course, Republicans aren't racist and amoral for voting in the likes of Trump, Steve King and Louie Gohmert) and they teach their kids in school to hate Israelis.


Shapiro attempted to turn the tables on Neal by saying the "BBC is reticent to denounce Hamas" and implying that they were having him on and attempting to embarrass him to "make a buck". Neal didn't take the bait. He ignored Hamas comment and said, "There aren't many dollars to make on BBC like American television." (Oh, snap!)


Oh, lil Benny became enraged at Neal reading his own words back to him. He attempted damage control by mentioning a column he wrote outlining all the dumb things he has said. Shapiro did do that. However, you will have to squint really hard to see an apology or sincere contrition for what he said. Oh, and he's continued to say the same shit. He just sugarcoats it better now.


After the exchange over the Palestinian tweets Shapiro had enough. He said the interview was over and took a not so subtle jab at Neal implying nobody had ever heard of Neal while suggesting he was immensely popular. "I've never even heard of you until now." Neal retorted, "Well, frankly, Mr. Shapiro I'd never heard of you until prepping for this interview." (That sound you heard was Shapiro's ego getting crushed.)


Shapiro shot back that Neal was disingenuous and dishonest. He took off his mic abruptly ending the interview. Neal said, "Thank you for your time, Mr. Shapiro, and showing the American right doesn't get angry when confronted with adversarial questions. (LMFAO!)


This entire episode was glorious. It really exposed Shapiro for the shamelessly grifting charlatan he is. And, by proxy it exposed the rest of the circle jerk of the IDW and rightwing/Fox News commentary sphere.


Shapiro fancies himself as the logic man. He loves to say "facts don't care about your feelings". Well, he most certainly didn't abide by that principle with Andrew Neal. Truth is, he never does.


Shapiro never answered one question Neal asked. Instead, he repeatedly attempted to turn it around and ask Neal the questions though it was him being interviewed. Also, not only did he obfuscate but Shapiro repeatedly employed strawmans, red herrings and mischaracterizations.


Why? Because as Neal pointed out a couple of times political pundits aren't used to journalists actually doing their jobs and asking objective adversarial questions. It's the journalist's or interviewer's responsibility to play devil's advocate so to speak.


Shapiro is way too accustomed appearing on Fox News and The Rubin Report where he is coddled and stroked. Even when he appears on Tucker Carlson's show under the guise of being adversaries in the same political ideology Carlson doesn't challenge him. Just like Carlson would expect the same in kind.


So, Shapiro isn't used to actually having to defend his positions because he's never challenged. Nor, does he want to be.


See, that's the secret here. People like Shapiro know their positions are often draconian and frankly indefensible, so they have zero desire to be challenged on them. Now, while I believe Shapiro has more of a core than say Dave Rubin he doesn't want to be questioned because he can't provide intelligent principled defenses for his positions beyond cursory talking points. Facts don't care about your feelings unless the facts aren't on your side.


Shapiro got caught with his pants down. (Sorry for that disturbing image.) Admittedly he did no prep for the interview. He likely never does because he doesn't ever expect substantive pushback. Simply, the emperor was exposed as having no clothes.


This is also why people like Shapiro, Rubin, Carlson, Candace Owens, ect almost exclusively do the rounds on each other shows. It is why they sprint from debates and look for safe spaces.


Sam Seder and David Pakman have been asking Rubin forever to debate them. He refuses citing some bullshit about them calling him names and being mean to him. So what?! What are you effin eight years old! No, it's the same reason Rubin claims to only care about ideas but only has rightwingers and pseudo progressives on his show. He doesn't want an adversarial challenge because he'll be exposed as the grifter he is.


Same goes for Candace Owens. She wilted under minimal adversarial questioning from Joe Rogan, arguably a conduit for the IDW and rightwing, regarding her stances on climate change. She has avoided Politicon the last two years because she's "not ready debates". Wtf?!


In fairness to Shapiro he will occasionally participate in debates, as he did with Cenk Uguyr in 2017, but anytime he was pressed he resorted to talking points.


These people present no fresh ideas nor can they intelligently defend their stances. Shapiro is supposed to be an elite conservative intellectual; yet, he was unable to defend his positions or his words when confronted with actual adversarial journalistic questions. And, it's because he is accustomed to a kid gloves approach and he purposely avoids anyone who will even slightly challenge his bullshit or the draconian ideas and policies of his party.


This Shapiro/BBC exchange won't end Shapiro's career. I doubt it will even damage the brand with his entrenched loyalists. However, for those who casual fans and agnostic observers he has been completely exposed. He bragged about having all the game and the biggest "D" on the block but when it was truly game time he was exposed as having weak game and his "


























































l

Back Off Ayesha Curry

People are always showing their ass on social media and can never see it because they lack self-awareness. Oh, and they're petty af!


Earlier this week Ayesha Curry, wife of NBA superstar Stephen Curry, was interviewed by Jada Pinkett Smith on her Facebook show. Ms. Curry spoke on a wide range of issues including her husband, his female fans and her feelings about his female fans.


Ayesha mentioned the number of women who approach Steph (in her presence) with clearly inappropriate intentions. She spoke about how sometimes it infuriates her the brazenness which women will throw themselves at him as if she's not standing there. And, she said while sometimes she wants to punch these women in the face she keeps her composure and respectfully interjects herself so these women remember who the queen is.


Nothing wrong with that. But, it's what she said next that sent Twitter and Facebook in to meltdown mode.


Ayesha said these encounters make her feel a little insecure because she receives little to no attention from men. She said at times she wants to be like, "I'm here." Ms. Curry went on to say that she would like a look or two from men just to be noticed.


Needles to say, social media lost its damn mind over this. People began dragging her for being insecure, jealous of Steph and even suggesting she wanted men to catcall or proposition her.


This is so ridiculous! Ayesha Curry was expressing emotions and vulnerability we have all experienced one time or another.


Curry, who is 30 years old, is an extremely successful woman. She is an author, has a successful show on the Food Network and yes, is married to a hundred millionaire NBA superstar! However, none of these facts means she can't be insecure or doesn't have the right to be.


People on social media were either excoriating her for betraying feminism or the other extreme was portraying her as a "self-absorbed bitch" who is jealous of her husband's success.


Neither of those are true. In fact, they're idiotic.


Ayesha was relaying a normal common human emotion. All of us want to feel desired. Even those among us who don't relish attention like a subtle glance or smile every now and again.


She was clearly not saying or even intimating that she wanted to be catcalled, have random dudes sliding into her dms or guys hitting her up on Instant Message. What she expressed was a very normal human desire to know she still catches some folks' attention.


Now, I can already hear some people saying as long as her husband wants her that is all that should matter. Yes, of course, what Steph thinks is what matters most. But, can we stop bullshittin. If a stranger gives you the once over or that subtle smile that says, "Dayum!", you're going to feel flattered. It doesn't mean you're wanting to creep around.


And, the notion she is jealous of her husband is quite an assumption. Again, she just wants to feel desired.


The thing is this happens with women and men. Look, it's nice to have someone give you a look or respectfully show they find you attractive. It doesn't inherently suggest you're basing your self-worth on other's opinions of you. It just means it's nice to have someone (without qualification) find you attractive. It's an ego boost and who among us doesn't appreciate an ego boost here and there.


And, the other aspect here is people revealing a look into their psyche, their insecurity and their superficiality without realizing it. Some folks cannot comprehend why Ayesha would care if a dude acknowledges her attractiveness because she is successful and more importantly (to them) is married to a uber wealthy famous man. They're like, "Why are you bitchin? You're rich and set for life."


A common notion (especially in this country) adopted by way too many people is that being wealthy makes you a better or superior person. I know because I hear this foolishness almost daily. Basically, the belief is if you are rich you are smarter and happier than everyone else. You should never feel insecure or inadequate because you are rich and/or famous.


Now, this dumbassery is purported by people who are not rich, but whom rather worship and canonize wealth and by proxy the wealthy. Actual rich people will tell you wealth makes certain aspects of life much easier but it is not an elixir for unhappiness or insecurity.


So, yes, Ayesha Curry is wealthy, famous and married to a great dude; however, it doesn't mean she doesn't possess insecurities or common human vanity concerns. It doesn't mean she doesn't want to feel "hot" which also doesn't mean she is saying attention from her husband is not enough. Rather, she's saying she's a bit vain, like all of us can be, and she'd like a dude or two to give her a quick up and down. Simple as that.


All of these folks shading Ayesha Curry are being petty and hypocritical. Some are just revealing how shallow they are.


Ayesha opened up and shared some real vulnerability which should be commended, not excoriated. She expressed a vulnerability which I dare say every single one of us have experienced in some shape form or fashion.


If people want to say she's vain, ok. But, I would say her expression of vanity is one we all share.


She is a 30 year old mother of two who has been married for 10 years to a successful good looking guy and who is experiencing feelings I imagine most women at some point experience.


Men experience this as well. Of course, it would be great if a woman gave me the eye or walked up to me (with no ulterior motive) and said, "You're a very handsome man." That would make my day. Why? Because, although I don't believe I'm a vain man I appreciate a little flattery. Who doesn't?!


This controversy is so contrived and silly. It just reveals folks' pettiness.


And, kudos to Steph Curry for having his wife's back. He issued a statement essentially praising her for her honesty and candor.


I will say what Steph can't though.


BACK OFF AYESHA CURRY!!!

The Dems Fatal Attraction To "Hot" Voters (Instead of Ones Who Are There For Them)

Too much of the Democratic Party reminds me of the dude or chick who perceives themselves as a person of depth yet are always chasing people who are more "fun" than substantive. They are always after the trashy woman or the asshole bad boy who doesn't want them but enjoys the attention so they lead them on. Or, even if they do want them, they aren't aligned with their principles. But, they think if they are given just a little time they'll mold the bad boy/girl into a productive decent minded person in society. And, we've all seen this way more often than not end in utter disaster.


Well, a sizeable portion of the current Democratic/Leftist population has this mentality toward Trump supporters. And, similar to the way some men ignore good women who are loyal and down to earth for chicks whose boobs are poppin in a halter top but are a hot mess, many Dems ignore the voters who tend to be their loyalists for the voters who appear to be more of a challenge and more attractive.


The loyalist voters for Democrats are undoubtedly people of color and the LGBTQ community. Since the Civil Rights Era people of color and LGBTQ have voted for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. For example, African-Americans are usually 90% plus in the Democrats corner.


However, over time this has eroded the white working class base. Or, as some refer to it the "working class" because I guess we're supposed to pretend people of color aren't in the working class. Anyway...


For the last 50 years Republicans have been steadily chipping away at the Democrats' once stronghold on the white middle class and poor.


In 2016 Donald Trump swooped in and placed a firm clasp on these voters with a fake populist message soaked in xenophobia, racism and misogyny. He sprinkled in some anti-trade talk and found a way to win the election.


Trump's victory messed Dems' minds all up. They couldn't figure out how a childish, buffoonish, anti-intellectual bigot won. Meantime, people of color and LGBTQ folks were shaking their heads at Democrats' bewilderment and saying, "Welcome to America."


Many Democrats have been unable to reconcile what happened in 2016. Because they haven't been able to reconcile it, they have come up with a simple diagnosis to deflect from reality. Economic angst.


Now, economic angst certainly played a role, so I am not downplaying it. However, for the majority of Trump supporters that was not the primary driver of their support for Trump. The truth is many Trump supporters (especially in deep red states) voted against their economic interests, as by the way they have for decades by voting Republican.


Let's cut the bullshit. Culture wars, race and ethnicity drove Trump supporters. Immigration, while not on the top 10 concerns of a majority of Americans, was the number one concern of Trump supporters. It was not the economy but the southern border where illegal crossings were down 90% from the year 2000!


The second biggest concern was also not the economy but Muslims. Terrorism was a tangential issue, frankly, because Trump and his supporters just didn't want Muslims coming into the country and wanted to quarantine the ones who were here. In fact, so much so, they literally said "fuck the Constitution" and wanted a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country".


Yet, a significant swath of Democrats across the political spectrum may I add insists it's "the economy stupid". And, it is; just not for Trump voters.


Democrats are immersed in this fever dream that if they just reach out to Trumpsters they'll save them from the cult. Fine.


Here's the problem. In doing so they're consciously alienating their most loyal constituency, people of color and the LGBTQ community.


The "It's economic angst" Dems say to the historically marginalized we need to see the big picture. Winning in 2020 is what matters.


Now, it's a party wide thing but the largest segment of this lusting for Trumpsters' support is in the Progressive/Leftist wing. Their argument is that if we concentrate on economic and healthcare issues some Trump supporters will abandon him and convert. Especially if Bernie Sanders (who is my preferred candidate) is the nominee or even Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard.


However, there is a "but" which is we table the social and racial issues or speak about them as if their tangential. For example, talking about criminal justice reform is great but let's keep a lid on the whole "black people are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system" thing. Or, it's ok to denounce white nationalist attacks but let's go easy on the "white nationalism/supremacy is evil and terrorism" rhetoric. Or, it's fine to support trans people, but let's chill on the railing against the bigotry levied upon them. Why you might ask? Well, that kind of talk will likely offend Trump supporters and we won't be able to convert them.


Basically, the message to people of color and LGBTQ is just trust we're on your side but we aren't going to advocate for you right now because we have these folks over here who don't particularly care for you that we're trying to reel in. So, it's essentially the equivalency of the woman who says to the dude who is all into her but he's just a regular guy, "Jim, you know I care about you. You're my friend", because she's more interested in bad boy, Dante, with his cool motorcycle and even cooler 16 warrants. And, she believes after she's done having fun with Dante and realizes he's not serious about her that she can slide back over to Jim, whom like a good lap dog, will be waiting.


That is exactly how it feels some of the Democratic Party feels about its base. Ironically, the people within the party who rightfully scold the establishment for taking people of color and LGBTQ for granted are doing the exact same thing. While they court people who, if they are not bigots, are ok with bigotry we are just expected to be ready and waiting when they need us. That shit is played and trite.


The truth is it's a potentially detrimental strategy. Hillary Clinton essentially employed this strategy in 2016. Some like to assert she was too focused on race but that is just fallacy. She ostensibly didn't make enough of an outreach to African-American voters. Look at the number of black folks who stayed home in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Then, keep in mind the 77,000 vote difference in those three states.


What some folks in the Democratic Party need to seriously realize is they are not winning shit without people of color. Sorry. It is what it is! Whomever wins the nomination will need a majority of support from people of color. And, the nominee will need people of color's support in the general election.


It is so perplexing and infuriating that Dems are more interested in pulling in the support of people who very well might not be racists but certainly are sympathizers and at the very least don't see racism/homophobia as a deal breaker at the expense of people who have been loyal to the party and the agenda. Why is it so important to these folks to pull in Trumpsters when they don't need them? Reach out to the fucking voters who've been ignored and taken for granted who don't need convincing that black, brown, gay and trans people are "icky"! Pull in the voters whose values already closely aligns with yours. I don't get it!


And, here's the thing. Trumpsters are never going to vote for anyone over Trump. It's crystal clear by now there is no red line. At least, it should be clear!


Sure, they might really like Sanders and Warren's economic policies. They might resent the uber wealthy and the establishment. They might hate these expensive imperialistic interventionist wars. They might even support Medicare For All. But, the evidence clearly shows none of these things tend to be the primary factor in voting.


It is empirical over the last 50 years a significant swath of the white working class votes against their economic interests in favor of their socially conservative ones. Whether it's fueled by religious fundamentalism and/or just raw bigotry election after election they don't vote for the candidate who is best for them.


As awful as Hillary Clinton was as a candidate, would she had been worse than Trump? Of course not.


I get it. The trashy hot chick always looks like more fun. Hell, she usually is! But, there is normally a lot of baggage and a lot of risk that accompanies her. At the end of the day she isn't what you need. What you need is usually right in front of you in plain sight. And, sure the hot chick can twerk, hold her own at the bar and do things that would make the "actresses" on Pornhub blush, but when you really need someone to be there for you or just wanna have an intelligent conversation she isn't going to be there. She'll either move on to the next or be with the jerk whom she planned on staying with all along.