After backlash, Shania Twain apologizes for saying she would have voted for Trump

[Shad]

When I say that there are Neo-Nazis in the Republican Party, I'm not engaging in hyperbole. The former head of the American Nazi Party is a Republican candidate for 2018. .

Your source omits how party registration works.

 

[Revoltingest]

We used poutine as a bribe.

We call it "haggis of the north".

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm just a bit uncomfortable with where this can lead. It feels like one is being forced to choose one side or another, with one side being rabidly pro-Trump and the other being rabidly anti-Trump.

It only appears that way because they're the noisiest elements.
I recall a great many of us here being less than thrilled with having
a choice of either Hillary or Donald, yet eventually picking one or
the other....a lesser of 2 evils scenario.
Can one vote for a candidate one dislikes? I did, & I'm not alone.

 

[Akivah]

After backlash, Shania Twain apologizes for saying she would have voted for Trump

I came across this story today. Obviously, Shania Twain can't vote in U.S. elections because she is a citizen of Canada. The original quote appeared in an article in The Guardian where she discussed many things - mostly about her personal life and career. But she also mentioned that if she could have, she would have voted for Trump.

{snip}

I guess what I'm wondering here is what this actually says about the current political climate. The dissension and consternation about Trump almost seems to produce this kind of knee-jerk, hair-trigger response, where even the slightest thing can cause a massive backlash.

I'd have to call her naïve. She should have known that anybody that expresses a political opinion will instantly offend half of the people. The best course of action is to refuse to comment on politics and just concentrate on your own business.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

It only appears that way because they're the noisiest elements.
I recall a great many of us here being less than thrilled with having
a choice of either Hillary or Donald, yet eventually picking one or
the other....a lesser of 2 evils scenario.
Can one vote for a candidate one dislikes? I did, & I'm not alone.

A poll was done during the election which asked respondents if their vote for Trump or Clinton was a vote FOR, or AGAINST the candidates opponent.

In both Trump and Clinton's case, the prospective vote for them was more a vote AGAINST the other candidate than a vote FOR them.

Negative voting such as this indicates that both Trump and Clinton had lots of people that weren't happy with them as candidates. They could have voted for Johnson, a middle of the road candidate with appeal to both sides philosophically. If all of those disgruntled negative voters had jumped ship and voted third party leaving the hard core D's and R's in place, the state of this country would be noticeably different today, in a good way.

 

[Revoltingest]

A poll was done during the election which asked respondents if their vote for Trump or Clinton was a vote FOR, or AGAINST the candidates opponent.

In both Trump and Clinton's case, the prospective vote for them was more a vote AGAINST the other candidate than a vote FOR them.

Negative voting such as this indicates that both Trump and Clinton had lots of people that weren't happy with them as candidates. They could have voted for Johnson, a middle of the road candidate with appeal to both sides philosophically. If all of those disgruntled negative voters had jumped ship and voted third party leaving the hard core D's and R's in place, the state of this country would be noticeably different today, in a good way.

I didn't see Johnson as middle of the road...more of a culling
the most libertarian positions from both of the Big 2 parties.
He was my top choice, but of course with a @Wirey's chance
in Hell of winning. (He's a snowman, you know.)
But Sanders had a shot, had he gotten the DNC nomination.
(I'd have voted for him as the lesser of 3 evils.)

You make stronger the case that neither Trump nor Hillary had a mandate.

 

[Milton Platt]

After backlash, Shania Twain apologizes for saying she would have voted for Trump

I came across this story today. Obviously, Shania Twain can't vote in U.S. elections because she is a citizen of Canada. The original quote appeared in an article in The Guardian where she discussed many things - mostly about her personal life and career. But she also mentioned that if she could have, she would have voted for Trump.



Personally, I've never been a huge fan, but I never had anything against her. A few of her songs were catchy back in the day. But many of her fans are quite upset now, and some are even calling for boycotting her new album and tour. All because she said she would have voted for Trump if she could have.

I guess what I'm wondering here is what this actually says about the current political climate. The dissension and consternation about Trump almost seems to produce this kind of knee-jerk, hair-trigger response, where even the slightest thing can cause a massive backlash.

Based on her responses and apologies after the backlash, it seems that she didn't really even realize what she said - or failed to anticipate the kind of response it would get. (There was a suggestion in the article that she may have said that in the belief that most Country music fans are Trump supporters.)

But then, people are jumping all over her like a pack of wolves on a three-legged cat. There seems to be a recklessness in the air, a kind of mob mentality at work when these things take place. Could they make a martyr out of her? Could this boost her standing among Country music fans who are also Trump supporters?

I don't understand why it matters who she would have voted for in an election she cannot vote in.............

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I didn't see Johnson as middle of the road...more of a culling
the most libertarian positions from both of the Big 2 parties.
He was my top choice, but of course with a @Wirey's chance
in Hell of winning. (He's a snowman, you know.)
But Sanders had a shot, had he gotten the DNC nomination.
(I'd have voted for him as the lesser of 3 evils.)

You make stronger the case that neither Trump nor Hillary had a mandate.

Definitely don't have mandates... And of course this is all history not worth discussing but when I say middle of the road, I mean that socially he governs as a mostly liberal-libertarian, and that economically he governs as a conservative-libertarian.

You say he didn't have a chance, but if all those disgruntled voters for Trump and Clinton had followed their conscience and not held their noses and voted for them, and instead jumped ship to Johnson's corner, he would have had a chance.

The basic argument against went as follows: Democrats would claim that a vote for Johnson was a vote for Trump, and then Republicans would claim that a vote for Johnson was a vote for Hillary, but the truth of the matter is that a vote for Johnson would have been a vote for Johnson, period.

American voters are too binary.

 

[YmirGF]

Right, exactly, that's what I suggested earlier. I commented about how Republicans can vote for Trump for reasons other than his racist views about certain people, but if he begins to push and enact racist policies I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Republicans would lock arms with Democrats to hold him to account on them.

Precisely. I think many tend to overlook the fact that many who voted for Trump simply because they considered the alternative(s) to be too terrible to seriously consider. It wasn't about race. It was about Saint Hillary being an incredibly polarizing candidate who had a tremendous amount of political baggage and scant little to show as genuine accomplishments.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Precisely. I think many tend to overlook the fact that many who voted for Trump simply because they considered the alternative(s) to be too terrible to seriously consider. It wasn't about race. It was about Saint Hillary being an incredibly polarizing candidate who had a tremendous amount of political baggage and scant little to show as genuine accomplishments.

I admit to favoring Johnson obviously, mostly because I've "partied" with him in New Mexico on the ski slopes in Santa Fe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Definitely don't have mandates... And of course this is all history not worth discussing but when I say middle of the road, I mean that socially he governs as a mostly liberal-libertarian, and that economically he governs as a conservative-libertarian.

You say he didn't have a chance, but if all those disgruntled voters for Trump and Clinton had followed their conscience and not held their noses and voted for them, and instead jumped ship to Johnson's corner, he would have had a chance.

The basic argument against went as follows: Democrats would claim that a vote for Johnson was a vote for Trump, and then Republicans would claim that a vote for Johnson was a vote for Hillary, but the truth of the matter is that a vote for Johnson would have been a vote for Johnson, period.

American voters are too binary.

The majority of Dems & Pubs would never vote for a Libertarian.
We're too far out in left (& right) field.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

The majority of Dems & Pubs would never vote for a Libertarian.
We're too far out in left (& right) field.

I agree, but only in the sense that during a normal election cycle where both candidates have good support from their base. When you have negative voting as high as Trump and Clinton had, that was the best opportunity for such a fundamental shift in American politics.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The basic argument against went as follows: Democrats would claim that a vote for Johnson was a vote for Trump, and then Republicans would claim that a vote for Johnson was a vote for Hillary, but the truth of the matter is that a vote for Johnson would have been a vote for Johnson, period.

Votes have consequences. No one argues that you shouldn't vote for who you like best, but you still need to understand what the consequences of that vote will be. For this last presidential election it came down to probably less than 200,000 votes spread over 5 states.

American voters are too binary.

Elections are binary. Either you win or you don't.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Votes have consequences. No one argues that you shouldn't vote for who you like best, but you still need to understand what the consequences of that vote will be. For this last presidential election it came down to probably less than 200,000 votes spread over 5 states.



Elections are binary. Either you win or you don't.

Yeah, no, yeah... Of course the election itself is binary, pardon my inelegantly formed last sentence, but I mean our political party system is too binary. Most other countries in the world that live under institutions of democracy have 3, 4, or more parties running and in contention for control, that post election have to jockey and join up with other parties to form coalitions to rule from a majority position, etc.

Americans have political parties that just absorb the voters and ideologies of these smaller parties before they can ever be much of a contender.

I just think that there are too many half interested Republicans and Democrats, who if only they would talk with each other would learn that they have lots more in common with each other than they do with the Republican or Democratic parties, but they don't do this because the herd will excoriate and excommunicate them for not preaching the party line.

There is just way too much "you are either with us or you're against us" going on these days...

 

[Sunstone]

Right, exactly, that's what I suggested earlier. I commented about how Republicans can vote for Trump for reasons other than his racist views about certain people, but if he begins to push and enact racist policies I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Republicans would lock arms with Democrats to hold him to account on them.

For the sake of a civil society and the nation, let's hope you're right. I share your view to an extent that the percentage of Trump supporters who are racist has been exaggerated. I think they exist, but I think their numbers compared to the whole have been exaggerated.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yeah, no, yeah... Of course the election itself is binary, pardon my inelegantly formed last sentence, but I mean our political party system is too binary. Most other countries in the world that live under institutions of democracy have 3, 4, or more parties running and in contention for control, that post election have to jockey and join up with other parties to form coalitions to rule from a majority position, etc.

The equivalent in the US system are the factions within each major party. Within the Democratic party you have East coast liberals, West coast liberals, and Blue Dog Democrats from conservative states, to name a few. Within the Republican Party you have the old guard of Reagan Republicans, neo-Conservatives, and the Freedom Caucus (née Tea Party). We also elect a head of state independently of the representative bodies, so that creates some differences between the US and parliamentary systems.

I just think that there are too many half interested Republicans and Democrats, who if only they would talk with each other would learn that they have lots more in common with each other than they do with the Republican or Democratic parties, but they don't do this because the herd will excoriate and excommunicate them for not preaching the party line.

There is just way too much "you are either with us or you're against us" going on these days...

I would completely agree with that. At some point they have to start putting citizens first instead of party first.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

For the sake of a civil society and the nation, let's hope you're right. I share your view to an extent that the percentage of Trump supporters who are racist has been exaggerated. I think they exist, but I think their numbers compared to the whole have been exaggerated.

The fallacy is in thinking that the Democrats don't have their share of racists as well.

I heard a quote years ago supposedly said by LBJ during the period close to his signing of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's... "I'll have those n****rs voting Democrat for 200 years". It is, so far, an unproven quote from him, but based on other anecdotal evidence from his life it's not hard to imagine him saying it.

Doris Kearns Goodwin directly quotes him as once saying (and this is probably where the first quote I gave came from): "These N****es, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again."

I'm just sayin', hope I didn't just break a forum rule somewhere...

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

The equivalent in the US system are the factions within each major party. Within the Democratic party you have East coast liberals, West coast liberals, and Blue Dog Democrats from conservative states, to name a few. Within the Republican Party you have the old guard of Reagan Republicans, neo-Conservatives, and the Freedom Caucus (née Tea Party). We also elect a head of state independently of the representative bodies, so that creates some differences between the US and parliamentary systems.



I would completely agree with that. At some point they have to start putting citizens first instead of party first.

Just a quibble... There are no more blue dog Democrats... They've all retired or been voted out or out and out switched parties. Conservative Democrats are dinosaurs that no longer exist.

 

[Sunstone]

The fallacy is in thinking that the Democrats don't have their share of racists as well.

I heard a quote years ago supposedly said by LBJ during the period close to his signing of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's... "I'll have those n****rs voting Democrat for 200 years". It is, so far, an unproven quote from him, but based on other anecdotal evidence from his life it's not hard to imagine him saying it.

Doris Kearns Goodwin directly quotes him as once saying (and this is probably where the first quote I gave came from): "These N****es, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again."

I'm just sayin', hope I didn't just break a forum rule somewhere...

Sounds like Johnson, doesn't it? But he often said, not what he believed, but what he believed his audience wanted to hear. The man was a politician to a fault.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Sounds like Johnson, doesn't it? But he often said, not what he believed, but what he believed his audience wanted to hear. The man was a politician to a fault.

Sure, he was a politician, no doubt, and politicians pander to their constituents, again no doubt, but he was a Texan from a different Era. He wasn't Bill Clinton triangulating, but he was definitely a shrewd politician who would, if he could, craft some legislation to help black people while helping himself....