I think we're two people mostly in agreement arguing past each other. I agree with everything you're saying except one part.Simon_Jester wrote:I think you're still getting mixed up over which 'they' you're talking about.
I don't know what you mean by creation, because in this instance you could mean a couple of things. But I'll roll with what I was originally going to say:2) That in the process, they have spent large amounts of time and effort, with the cooperation of right-wing media outlets, on creating an audience that is responsive to these views.
They didn't create an audience. They merely moved a heavily marginalized one back to the front. The "good ol' days" guys who spout excessive racism and sexism. The kind of guys who bailed on GW by saying his failings were because he wasn't conservative enough. They "joked" about keep the white house white. No way Obama was getting elected because they believed everyone was as terrified of a black guy as they all were. And McCain lost to him because he wasn't conservative enough. That's why they paired him with Nailin' Palin.
The RNC went begging to those guy for support because faith in the RNC was at an all-time low after GW and even worse after Obama spanked. the. shit. out of them. It's getting about as bad now as it was then. Though Trump gave them an energy boost.
As you said in #1: they've always been here. But their overt bullshit wasn't all that tolerated. News wouldn't touch them or would run them through the ringer. Moderates would write them off immediately. The Republicans had to maintain a public face of "we're totally not those people... but we'll take their votes." They found their home in Social Media hugboxes where they could spew whatever with little notice and be easily ignored. Because, what were they going to do, hijack a major political party and put someone like Trump in head office?
Yes actually, and the warning signs were there (did everyone just forget the Tea Party and how much headway they made?). In the face of gerry-mandering, districts you could label as "hugboxes," and voter laziness: Charles Manson could get elected in a two party system.
I also could just be way off-base and arguing semantics with you. I mean, if you said "Sim City created a new market for video games" because women, for which video games were the domain of men, played it a lot: I'd say you were wrong. They didn't turn women into gamers, they just found many women would like to play video games if it was enjoyable to them. That's all the Republicans did: change the message.... admittedly to one of with a lot of hate. And the sane Republicans are along for the ride, as they also aren't going to switch to (D).
If that's what you meant: then we actually are in complete agreement and I'm just arguing because I like the sound my mechanical keyboard makes.
Also, media reporting Trump's chance of winning "snowballs chance in Hell" for months and so loudly, even I got suckered in.Flagg wrote:Yeah, enthusiasm last election was way down. I think people were just sick of Trumps dumpster fire campaigning and then when Comey pulled his bullshit stunt with the emails I think the "Clinton is a crook" (despite 20+ years of investigations that led to nothing of any import) meme was the last straw for a lot of people who just tuned the rest of the campaign out and didn't vote.
Fucking Democrats made me eat crow in front of my Trump lovin' brother. Liberals man. God damn it.