Trump loyalists in Congress to challenge Electoral College results in Jan. 6 joint session (Update: Insurrectionists storm Congress)(And now what?) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,740
    Reaction score
    12,007
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    I guess it's time to start a thread for this. We know that at least 140 members of Congress have pledged to join the objection. Under federal law, if at least one member of each house (HOR and Senate) objects, each house will adjourn the joint session for their own session (limited at two hours) to take up the objection. If both houses pass a resolution objecting to the EC result, further action can take place. If both houses do not (i.e. if one or neither passes a resolution), the objection is powerless and the college result is certified.

    Clearly this is political theater as we know such a resolution will not pass the House, and there's good reason to think it wouldn't pass the Senate either (with or without the two senators from Georgia). The January 6 joint session is traditionally a ceremonial one. This one will not be.

    Many traditional pillars of Republican support have condemned the plan as futile and damaging. Certainly the Trump loyalists don't care - and many are likely doing it for fundraising purposes or to carry weight with the fraction of their constituencies that think this is a good idea.


     
    A Washington state man who used a megaphone to orchestrate a mob’s attack on police officers guarding the U.S. Capitol was sentenced on Wednesday to more than seven years in prison.

    U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said videos captured Taylor James Johnatakis playing a leadership role during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Johnatakis led other rioters on a charge against a police line, “barked commands” over his megaphone and shouted step-by-step directions for overpowering officers, the judge said.

    “In any angry mob, there are leaders and there are followers. Mr. Johnatakis was a leader. He knew what he was doing that day,” the judge said before sentencing him to seven years and three months behind bars.

    Johnatakis, who represented himself with an attorney on standby, has repeatedly expressed rhetoric that appears to be inspired by the anti-government “ sovereign citizen ” movement. He asked the judge questions at his sentencing, including, “Does the record reflect that I repent in my sins?”..........

     
    A federal judge on Wednesday blasted a convicted January 6 rioter for downplaying the US Capitol attack and using the kind of revisionist rhetoric that former President Donald Trump often uses on the campaign trial.

    “This cannot become normal… We cannot condone the normalization of the January 6 US Capitol riot,” US District Judge Royce Lamberth said while sentencing Taylor James Johnatakis to more than seven years in prison.

    The judge warned of a “vicious cycle … that could imperil our institutions” if Americans, upset with future election results, resort to the “vigilantism, lawlessness and anarchy” that occurred on January 6, 2021.

    He did not reference Trump by name while sentencing Johnatakis, but the comparisons were clear. After Johnatakis’ conviction in November, he has mirrored Trump’s rhetoric in interviews about the insurrection, saying “everything about January 6 is just overblown,” and referring to the jail in Washington, DC, as a “gulag.”

    Trump has similarly put what he calls “January 6 hostages” front and center in his campaign. He has pledged to pardon some of the people facing charges for their role in the insurrection. And he has played a song at political rallies that features the voices of January 6 inmates singing the national anthem.

    The judge declared Wednesday that “the January 6 riot was not civil disobedience,” but instead was a “corrosive” and “selfish, not patriotic” affront to the nation, where Americans were “battling (their) own representative government.” He invoked the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau as examples of historic American figures who pursued “peaceful” but powerful acts of civil disobedience.............

     
    Evidently there is a book called “White Rural Rage” that has put forth the thesis that rural America is a breeding ground for insurrection. This guy did some digging and found that the authors were definitely not telling the story correctly. They cite studies, and then misrepresented what those studies showed. But their book got a lot of play, because it fits a narrative that ties everything up neatly. Here is a thread and link to his article.



    Turns out radical right wing rage doesn’t mostly come from truly rural areas. But from the following profile:

    IMG_1371.jpeg
     
    I posted this because I think we have had a conversation about this in the past. That areas where the white population is in decline tend to produce more radicalization than areas that do not have the decline. And with the decline, a change of voting patterns in the area from R to D.
     
    Former president Donald Trump said Friday that a Colorado woman convicted of four federal misdemeanor charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is a “patriot” and shared a link on social media where people can donate money to help defray her legal expenses.


    The woman, Rebecca Lavrenz, was convicted this week in Washington of disorderly and disruptive conduct and three other charges. In his posting to nearly 7 million followers on Truth Social, Trump referred to her as “one of Joe Biden’s J6 HOSTAGES!!”……..

     
    Evidently there is a book called “White Rural Rage” that has put forth the thesis that rural America is a breeding ground for insurrection. This guy did some digging and found that the authors were definitely not telling the story correctly. They cite studies, and then misrepresented what those studies showed. But their book got a lot of play, because it fits a narrative that ties everything up neatly. Here is a thread and link to his article.



    Turns out radical right wing rage doesn’t mostly come from truly rural areas. But from the following profile:

    IMG_1371.jpeg

    Excellent article on that book and how liberals generally think about white rural voters.

    ...I’m an academic who studies rural Americans and lives in rural Maine. My job and passion is to pore over reams of data, including some of the largest surveys of rural voters ever conducted. Sitting on my computer are detailed responses from over 25,000 rural voters that I have conducted over the last decade and used to publish a range of peer-reviewed and widely cited research. And I’ve done it all largely to make sense of why rural voters are continually drawn to the Republican Party.

    But the thing about rage — I’ve never found it.

    The problem with this “rage” thesis is much larger than the fact that my research, and that of others, is being misinterpreted and misunderstood. What the authors are getting wrong about rural America is exactly what many Democrats have been getting wrong for decades — and appear to be doing so again in this critical presidential election year.

    ...Academics can and do disagree on what is motivating non-college-educated whites to vote for Donald Trump. I don’t pretend that we have settled on a single answer. I do know that there is something particular about Trump’s appeal in rural America and that demographics alone do not explain it. In rural America, women are more likely to vote for Trump; so are young people; so are poor as well as rich. Place matters.

    ...In recent years, that rural political identity has morphed into resentment — a collective grievance against experts, bureaucrats, intellectuals and the political party that seeks to empower them, Democrats.

    Yes, such resentment is a real phenomenon in rural areas. But words matter; rage and resentment are not interchangeable terms. Rage implies irrationality, anger that is unjustified and out of proportion. You can’t talk to someone who is enraged. Resentment is rational, a reaction based on some sort of negative experience. You may not agree that someone has been treated unfairly, but there is room to empathize.

    Research both by me and by others has illuminated how resentment is driven by the complex rural identity that, while occasionally intersecting with national political currents, is rooted in the unique context of rural life. Rage, both as a soundbite and as presented in the book, oversimplifies and misrepresents these debates. And so does the assumption that all the holders of these views are white, and that this rage is motivated by racism. Racism exists in all parts of the country and is embedded in American politics. But what the research shows is that while there are deep and persistent racial resentments in rural communities, despite a slight correlation between the two, rural resentment is an attitude distinct from racial prejudice.

    ...The “birther” claim they like to throw about — that rural residents are more likely to believe that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States — comes from a “study” by a polling firm called Public Policy Polling, a firm with dubious credentials that not only seems to exist primarily to lampoon conservative voters, but that also, in this case, drew results about “rural America” from just two states.

    ...Rural voters do not give Democrats credit for much good. And rural voters may indeed support policies and politicians that seem, from an outside perspective, to undermine their own economic interests.

    However, that is exactly what a focus on resentment helps us to understand. This is not rage against the people trying to help. Nor is it an excuse. Resentment, instead, asks us to consider how rural voters’ choices are frequently rooted in values and place-based identities that place a strong emphasis on self-reliance, local control and a profound sense of injustice regarding the lack of recognition for rural contributions to society.

    There is no “mystery” to it. Rural Americans often prioritize their way of life over immediate economic gains that are often promised (and not always delivered) by policy solutions. My research suggests that their perceived resistance to certain policies, and especially a political party that advocates for a multitude of governmental correctives, is a complex reaction stemming from years of economic transition, dislocation and yes, harm from policies they were told would help.

    Sure, “Hollywood didn’t kill the family farm and send jobs overseas. ... College professors didn’t pour mountains of opioids in rural communities,” as Schaller and Waldman write. But rural people do know that federal agriculture and trade policies pushed by Democrats and Republicans did destroy many rural economies. Rural people do know that liberal elites stood by as rural students became one of the least likely groups to attend college, and one of the most likely to drop out. So they benefit from Obamacare and vote against it; can rural people contain multitudes, too?

    Taken as a whole, rural voters are not merely reacting against change — be it demographic or economic. They are actively seeking to preserve a sense of agency over their future and a continuity of their community’s values and social structures. Some might call this conservatism, but I think it is the same thing motivating fears of gentrification in urban areas, or the desire to “keep Portland weird.” Place matters for a whole bunch of people — but especially for rural folks.

    ...Instead of a politics that seeks to understand and represent these contradictions, the left wants to simplify ruralness into something it’s not. In the immediate aftermath of 2016, blaming rural people was a way to make sense of the surprise of Trump’s election. This latest obsession with rage is the next chapter, a kind of collective cry of frustration from tired progressives: “We give up!” There is a general tendency among the readers of the New York Times and viewers of MSNBC to think about politics in purely transactional terms: We give you these benefits, you give us your votes. And rural voters, as Waldman is right to note, aren’t living up to that supposed bargain.

    But this flies in the face of what research on resentment actually tells us. For many rural residents, the solutions they seek may not always come neatly packaged as government policies, white papers or policy briefs pumped out of a campaign war room. I’ve found that resentments exist because self-reliance and local problem-solving is intrinsic to rural identity, and self-reliance is something by nature resistant to government policies emanating from Washington, D.C.

    The assumption that rural whites are motivated primarily by racism is especially pernicious. A politics that learned the lessons of rural resentment would not deny that racial divisions are present throughout rural America, but would recognize that racial animus can exist alongside other motivations.

    The fact is that racial resentment has long predicted support for conservative candidates in American elections no matter where voters live. Did racially resentful whites in 2012 vote for Obama? No. So what explains the massive shift among so many rural voters who cast ballots for Obama in 2012 but for Trump just four years later? Maybe he primed racial animus to a higher degree. Maybe he made it openly acceptable to say certain things. Or maybe he spoke to different motivations that expanded his constituency alongside other motivations, including white grievance, that were already fully cemented in the rural Republican coalition.

    That is what the data show. The data do not show that rural America is devoid of racial resentment. The data do not show that urban America is either. Indeed, racial resentment is a powerful predictor of support for Trump throughout America, as I show in my book. But rural resentment — that sense of place, the anxieties felt about one’s community, the deeply engrained feeling that urban America would erase rural ways of living if given the chance — that is a predictor of Trump support only in rural America.

     
    Excellent article on that book and how liberals generally think about white rural voters.

    ...I’m an academic who studies rural Americans and lives in rural Maine. My job and passion is to pore over reams of data, including some of the largest surveys of rural voters ever conducted. Sitting on my computer are detailed responses from over 25,000 rural voters that I have conducted over the last decade and used to publish a range of peer-reviewed and widely cited research. And I’ve done it all largely to make sense of why rural voters are continually drawn to the Republican Party.

    But the thing about rage — I’ve never found it.

    The problem with this “rage” thesis is much larger than the fact that my research, and that of others, is being misinterpreted and misunderstood. What the authors are getting wrong about rural America is exactly what many Democrats have been getting wrong for decades — and appear to be doing so again in this critical presidential election year.

    ...Academics can and do disagree on what is motivating non-college-educated whites to vote for Donald Trump. I don’t pretend that we have settled on a single answer. I do know that there is something particular about Trump’s appeal in rural America and that demographics alone do not explain it. In rural America, women are more likely to vote for Trump; so are young people; so are poor as well as rich. Place matters.

    ...In recent years, that rural political identity has morphed into resentment — a collective grievance against experts, bureaucrats, intellectuals and the political party that seeks to empower them, Democrats.

    Yes, such resentment is a real phenomenon in rural areas. But words matter; rage and resentment are not interchangeable terms. Rage implies irrationality, anger that is unjustified and out of proportion. You can’t talk to someone who is enraged. Resentment is rational, a reaction based on some sort of negative experience. You may not agree that someone has been treated unfairly, but there is room to empathize.

    Research both by me and by others has illuminated how resentment is driven by the complex rural identity that, while occasionally intersecting with national political currents, is rooted in the unique context of rural life. Rage, both as a soundbite and as presented in the book, oversimplifies and misrepresents these debates. And so does the assumption that all the holders of these views are white, and that this rage is motivated by racism. Racism exists in all parts of the country and is embedded in American politics. But what the research shows is that while there are deep and persistent racial resentments in rural communities, despite a slight correlation between the two, rural resentment is an attitude distinct from racial prejudice.

    ...The “birther” claim they like to throw about — that rural residents are more likely to believe that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States — comes from a “study” by a polling firm called Public Policy Polling, a firm with dubious credentials that not only seems to exist primarily to lampoon conservative voters, but that also, in this case, drew results about “rural America” from just two states.

    ...Rural voters do not give Democrats credit for much good. And rural voters may indeed support policies and politicians that seem, from an outside perspective, to undermine their own economic interests.

    However, that is exactly what a focus on resentment helps us to understand. This is not rage against the people trying to help. Nor is it an excuse. Resentment, instead, asks us to consider how rural voters’ choices are frequently rooted in values and place-based identities that place a strong emphasis on self-reliance, local control and a profound sense of injustice regarding the lack of recognition for rural contributions to society.

    There is no “mystery” to it. Rural Americans often prioritize their way of life over immediate economic gains that are often promised (and not always delivered) by policy solutions. My research suggests that their perceived resistance to certain policies, and especially a political party that advocates for a multitude of governmental correctives, is a complex reaction stemming from years of economic transition, dislocation and yes, harm from policies they were told would help.

    Sure, “Hollywood didn’t kill the family farm and send jobs overseas. ... College professors didn’t pour mountains of opioids in rural communities,” as Schaller and Waldman write. But rural people do know that federal agriculture and trade policies pushed by Democrats and Republicans did destroy many rural economies. Rural people do know that liberal elites stood by as rural students became one of the least likely groups to attend college, and one of the most likely to drop out. So they benefit from Obamacare and vote against it; can rural people contain multitudes, too?

    Taken as a whole, rural voters are not merely reacting against change — be it demographic or economic. They are actively seeking to preserve a sense of agency over their future and a continuity of their community’s values and social structures. Some might call this conservatism, but I think it is the same thing motivating fears of gentrification in urban areas, or the desire to “keep Portland weird.” Place matters for a whole bunch of people — but especially for rural folks.

    ...Instead of a politics that seeks to understand and represent these contradictions, the left wants to simplify ruralness into something it’s not. In the immediate aftermath of 2016, blaming rural people was a way to make sense of the surprise of Trump’s election. This latest obsession with rage is the next chapter, a kind of collective cry of frustration from tired progressives: “We give up!” There is a general tendency among the readers of the New York Times and viewers of MSNBC to think about politics in purely transactional terms: We give you these benefits, you give us your votes. And rural voters, as Waldman is right to note, aren’t living up to that supposed bargain.

    But this flies in the face of what research on resentment actually tells us. For many rural residents, the solutions they seek may not always come neatly packaged as government policies, white papers or policy briefs pumped out of a campaign war room. I’ve found that resentments exist because self-reliance and local problem-solving is intrinsic to rural identity, and self-reliance is something by nature resistant to government policies emanating from Washington, D.C.

    The assumption that rural whites are motivated primarily by racism is especially pernicious. A politics that learned the lessons of rural resentment would not deny that racial divisions are present throughout rural America, but would recognize that racial animus can exist alongside other motivations.

    The fact is that racial resentment has long predicted support for conservative candidates in American elections no matter where voters live. Did racially resentful whites in 2012 vote for Obama? No. So what explains the massive shift among so many rural voters who cast ballots for Obama in 2012 but for Trump just four years later? Maybe he primed racial animus to a higher degree. Maybe he made it openly acceptable to say certain things. Or maybe he spoke to different motivations that expanded his constituency alongside other motivations, including white grievance, that were already fully cemented in the rural Republican coalition.

    That is what the data show. The data do not show that rural America is devoid of racial resentment. The data do not show that urban America is either. Indeed, racial resentment is a powerful predictor of support for Trump throughout America, as I show in my book. But rural resentment — that sense of place, the anxieties felt about one’s community, the deeply engrained feeling that urban America would erase rural ways of living if given the chance — that is a predictor of Trump support only in rural America.

    Nice copy pasta. Inrats.
     
    Excellent article on that book and how liberals generally think about white rural voters.

    ...I’m an academic who studies rural Americans and lives in rural Maine. My job and passion is to pore over reams of data, including some of the largest surveys of rural voters ever conducted. Sitting on my computer are detailed responses from over 25,000 rural voters that I have conducted over the last decade and used to publish a range of peer-reviewed and widely cited research. And I’ve done it all largely to make sense of why rural voters are continually drawn to the Republican Party.

    But the thing about rage — I’ve never found it.

    The problem with this “rage” thesis is much larger than the fact that my research, and that of others, is being misinterpreted and misunderstood. What the authors are getting wrong about rural America is exactly what many Democrats have been getting wrong for decades — and appear to be doing so again in this critical presidential election year.

    ...Academics can and do disagree on what is motivating non-college-educated whites to vote for Donald Trump. I don’t pretend that we have settled on a single answer. I do know that there is something particular about Trump’s appeal in rural America and that demographics alone do not explain it. In rural America, women are more likely to vote for Trump; so are young people; so are poor as well as rich. Place matters.

    ...In recent years, that rural political identity has morphed into resentment — a collective grievance against experts, bureaucrats, intellectuals and the political party that seeks to empower them, Democrats.

    Yes, such resentment is a real phenomenon in rural areas. But words matter; rage and resentment are not interchangeable terms. Rage implies irrationality, anger that is unjustified and out of proportion. You can’t talk to someone who is enraged. Resentment is rational, a reaction based on some sort of negative experience. You may not agree that someone has been treated unfairly, but there is room to empathize.

    Research both by me and by others has illuminated how resentment is driven by the complex rural identity that, while occasionally intersecting with national political currents, is rooted in the unique context of rural life. Rage, both as a soundbite and as presented in the book, oversimplifies and misrepresents these debates. And so does the assumption that all the holders of these views are white, and that this rage is motivated by racism. Racism exists in all parts of the country and is embedded in American politics. But what the research shows is that while there are deep and persistent racial resentments in rural communities, despite a slight correlation between the two, rural resentment is an attitude distinct from racial prejudice.

    ...The “birther” claim they like to throw about — that rural residents are more likely to believe that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States — comes from a “study” by a polling firm called Public Policy Polling, a firm with dubious credentials that not only seems to exist primarily to lampoon conservative voters, but that also, in this case, drew results about “rural America” from just two states.

    ...Rural voters do not give Democrats credit for much good. And rural voters may indeed support policies and politicians that seem, from an outside perspective, to undermine their own economic interests.

    However, that is exactly what a focus on resentment helps us to understand. This is not rage against the people trying to help. Nor is it an excuse. Resentment, instead, asks us to consider how rural voters’ choices are frequently rooted in values and place-based identities that place a strong emphasis on self-reliance, local control and a profound sense of injustice regarding the lack of recognition for rural contributions to society.

    There is no “mystery” to it. Rural Americans often prioritize their way of life over immediate economic gains that are often promised (and not always delivered) by policy solutions. My research suggests that their perceived resistance to certain policies, and especially a political party that advocates for a multitude of governmental correctives, is a complex reaction stemming from years of economic transition, dislocation and yes, harm from policies they were told would help.

    Sure, “Hollywood didn’t kill the family farm and send jobs overseas. ... College professors didn’t pour mountains of opioids in rural communities,” as Schaller and Waldman write. But rural people do know that federal agriculture and trade policies pushed by Democrats and Republicans did destroy many rural economies. Rural people do know that liberal elites stood by as rural students became one of the least likely groups to attend college, and one of the most likely to drop out. So they benefit from Obamacare and vote against it; can rural people contain multitudes, too?

    Taken as a whole, rural voters are not merely reacting against change — be it demographic or economic. They are actively seeking to preserve a sense of agency over their future and a continuity of their community’s values and social structures. Some might call this conservatism, but I think it is the same thing motivating fears of gentrification in urban areas, or the desire to “keep Portland weird.” Place matters for a whole bunch of people — but especially for rural folks.

    ...Instead of a politics that seeks to understand and represent these contradictions, the left wants to simplify ruralness into something it’s not. In the immediate aftermath of 2016, blaming rural people was a way to make sense of the surprise of Trump’s election. This latest obsession with rage is the next chapter, a kind of collective cry of frustration from tired progressives: “We give up!” There is a general tendency among the readers of the New York Times and viewers of MSNBC to think about politics in purely transactional terms: We give you these benefits, you give us your votes. And rural voters, as Waldman is right to note, aren’t living up to that supposed bargain.

    But this flies in the face of what research on resentment actually tells us. For many rural residents, the solutions they seek may not always come neatly packaged as government policies, white papers or policy briefs pumped out of a campaign war room. I’ve found that resentments exist because self-reliance and local problem-solving is intrinsic to rural identity, and self-reliance is something by nature resistant to government policies emanating from Washington, D.C.

    The assumption that rural whites are motivated primarily by racism is especially pernicious. A politics that learned the lessons of rural resentment would not deny that racial divisions are present throughout rural America, but would recognize that racial animus can exist alongside other motivations.

    The fact is that racial resentment has long predicted support for conservative candidates in American elections no matter where voters live. Did racially resentful whites in 2012 vote for Obama? No. So what explains the massive shift among so many rural voters who cast ballots for Obama in 2012 but for Trump just four years later? Maybe he primed racial animus to a higher degree. Maybe he made it openly acceptable to say certain things. Or maybe he spoke to different motivations that expanded his constituency alongside other motivations, including white grievance, that were already fully cemented in the rural Republican coalition.

    That is what the data show. The data do not show that rural America is devoid of racial resentment. The data do not show that urban America is either. Indeed, racial resentment is a powerful predictor of support for Trump throughout America, as I show in my book. But rural resentment — that sense of place, the anxieties felt about one’s community, the deeply engrained feeling that urban America would erase rural ways of living if given the chance — that is a predictor of Trump support only in rural America.

    I live in a red rural area. I have driven through rural areas in western PA, western NY, WV and Ohio. That insurrectionists were more prevalent in certain areas won by Biden is an indicator of White fear driven by changing demographics. I have seen that same attitude in rural areas won by Trump. White rage (read: fear) is real and it exists everywhere. The insurrection is not the only barometer of White rage.
     
    Indeed, racial resentment is a powerful predictor of support for Trump throughout America, as I show in my book.
    Yep. We have known this for a long time. What the original book got wrong was that this racial resentment is only found in rural America. It’s just as likely to reside in suburban or urban areas that are seeing a shift in demographics. The insurrection in particular was driven by people who felt this racial resentment.
     
    Yep. We have known this for a long time. What the original book got wrong was that this racial resentment is only found in rural America. It’s just as likely to reside in suburban or urban areas that are seeing a shift in demographics. The insurrection in particular was driven by people who felt this racial resentment.
    The assumption that rural whites are motivated primarily by racism is especially pernicious. A politics that learned the lessons of rural resentment would not deny that racial divisions are present throughout rural America, but would recognize that racial animus can exist alongside other motivations.
     
    The assumption that rural whites are motivated primarily by racism is especially pernicious. A politics that learned the lessons of rural resentment would not deny that racial divisions are present throughout rural America, but would recognize that racial animus can exist alongside other motivations.
    So? When did I say primarily? I don’t think this is the flex you think it is.

    Racial animus is a powerful predictor of Trump support. Let that sink in.

    To say there are other factors as well is just stating the obvious. Of course there are. One issue is rarely the entire story. It doesn’t change the racial animus factor. BTW, racial animus is just soft language for racism.
     
    So? When did I say primarily? I don’t think this is the flex you think it is.

    Racial animus is a powerful predictor of Trump support. Let that sink in.

    To say there are other factors as well is just stating the obvious. Of course there are. One issue is rarely the entire story. It doesn’t change the racial animus factor. BTW, racial animus is just soft language for racism.
    You should read that entire article. It sounded like it was describing many of your views and how you view people on the right.
     
    The assumption that rural whites are motivated primarily by racism is especially pernicious. A politics that learned the lessons of rural resentment would not deny that racial divisions are present throughout rural America, but would recognize that racial animus can exist alongside other motivations.
    Of course, other factors exist. Racism, which is White fear, impacts economic considerations. Immigrants are coming for my/our jobs.
     
    The assumption that rural whites are motivated primarily by racism is especially pernicious. A politics that learned the lessons of rural resentment would not deny that racial divisions are present throughout rural America, but would recognize that racial animus can exist alongside other motivations.

    When Trump gets convicted on some of these 90 counts. Will you promise to not hide, and come on the board and give us some stream of consciousness post? I would love to have you workout your feelings, and thoughts publicly in that moment.

    Pretty please.
     
    The assumption that rural whites are motivated primarily by racism is especially pernicious. A politics that learned the lessons of rural resentment would not deny that racial divisions are present throughout rural America, but would recognize that racial animus can exist alongside other motivations.
    What the above is saying is that rural white resentment is motivated by racism, but that may not be the primary or the only motivation for their white resentment.

    What the above does not say is that rural white resentment is not motivated by racism. In fact, it says that there is no denying that racial divisions are present throughout rural America.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom