“Suburban women, will you please like me? I saved your damn neighborhood, OK.” – DJT

Uncategorized 1 Minute

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-begs-suburban-women-will-you-please-like-me

My oh my. How did he do that? Easy peasy. He issued an EO that made it marginally more difficult for developers to create “low income housing” in those lovely suburbs. As he pleaded with these suburban women he went on to add that he won 52% of women in 2016. Whoops. That would be 52% of white women. Counting ALL women he was down by about 15 points.

No race-baiting by the Birther-in-chief here. Move along. Move along.

Published by Paul Murphy

Published

10 thoughts on ““Suburban women, will you please like me? I saved your damn neighborhood, OK.” – DJT”

  1. You lefties are so dour that you don’t recognize self deprecating humor when you see it.

    But remember that as you call President Trump a racist, that you are calling all those for whom his words ring true racists as well. Remember how well calling the voters deplorables worked last time?

    People choose to live in the suburbs for many reasons. Lower density is one of them. Better supported, uncrowded, schools is another. They make sacrifices to live there.

    White or black, they don’t want to see their $400K house become a a $200K house because a low income apartment building is put up at the end of their cul-de-sac. They don’t want the schools supported by their property taxes flooded with the children of low income renters who don’t pay those taxes or provide the parental support for the schools they do.

    It’s not racism, it’s protecting the investment they worked for and giving their children a better life.

    But go ahead, call all those suburban homeowners racists. See how that works out for you.

    Like

    Reply

  2. The self-deprecating humor stopped when the Birther-in-chief added “I saved your damn neighborhood, Ok.” That was not humor.

    If a race-baiting racist makes a racist appeal and someone finds that it rings true then they too are a racist. IMHO.

    Your argument is one of the oldest ones in the book. “There goes the neighborhood.” It is more than a little bit out of date. Thanks to anti-discrimination laws passed by Democrats. Trump’s EO was a purely symbolic pander and will not “save” any neighborhood. But, he knows how choose his symbols to feed division. Have to give him that.

    You will never acknowledge the implicit racism and racist stereotypes dripping from your defense of the Birther-in-chief. But there they are. For example, schools “flooded with the children of low income renters who don’t pay those taxes” and whose parents don’t care for them properly. People who rent DO pay the taxes that support the schools albeit, indirectly. But you know that. Must have forgotten.

    By the way, what happened to the “free market knows best?” Apparently, it doesn’t if your neighborhood needs Trump to “save” it from those horrible “low income” people.

    Like

    Reply

    1. DO you contend that a Section 8 renter family of four pays anything like a family of four with a $400K house in pass-thru property tax? Or apartments in general for that matter? High density housing dilutes property tax funding for schools any way you slice it.

      Ideally, in a truly free market, housing density would be controlled through restrictive covenants attached to the deeds in a subdivision, but zoning is an alternate means to the same end. Overruling those protections of property value is really a ‘taking’ that should be challenged under the 4th Amendment.

      And it is not race, it is density. My home equity was not harmed when my black neighbor moved in next door to me, he paid as much for his home as I did and paid the same property taxes as me.

      Like

      Reply

      1. So now, it is not that “low income” people paying rent “don’t pay those taxes.” It is now they may – and probably do – pay less than somebody in a valuable single family home. Yeah, okay. Sure. Closer to the truth.

        As a society we have a moral obligation and a Darwinian imperative to give ALL children the best education that we can. If the way we fund education is broken then fix THAT instead of hiding behind the problem as an excuse for housing discrimination.

        As it turns out, Trump has done a complete about face on promoting affordable housing. Politico describes that about face here. . .

        https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/23/trumplow-income-housing-suburbs-400155

        The actual history makes it crystal clear why the about face. Trying to motivate his base rather than address a problem.

        The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968. If a town or city wants Federal funds, it has to comply with that act and the act requires only that they take affirmative steps to end ILLEGAL housing discrimination. This is one of those MANY laws which Trump has sworn to faithfully execute but instead is sabotaging.

        https://www.allianceforhousingjustice.org/post/understanding-affh

        Finally, it is interesting to watch your tap dance to justify your double standard about the wisdom of the market. Now, unless the government forces the market to keep “low income” people out of your neighborhood it is a “taking” from you? And, lest we forget, there is nothing under discussion or in the law about over-ruling zoning boards.

        Like

        Reply

        1. RE: “The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968. If a town or city wants Federal funds, it has to comply with that act and the act requires only that they take affirmative steps to end ILLEGAL housing discrimination. This is one of those MANY laws which Trump has sworn to faithfully execute but instead is sabotaging.”

          You are barking up the wrong tree. The Fair Housing Act is not in play, and Trump has done nothing to undermine it. Instead, an Obama-era rule that Biden supports is the issue.

          The rule was called the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” rule. It would have imposed federal and regional controls on suburban development, literally removing locally-elected governments from the process of deciding how funds are used to support their own neighborhoods. The Trump administration wisely terminated the rule this past July.

          https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-ends-affh/

          Like

          Reply

          1. You are entitled to you own opinions. And welcome to them. But neither you nor any of your “conservative” sources do not get your own facts.

            The authority for the Obama era regulation called AFFH is directly and explicitly found in the act and I quote . . .

            “The Secretary [HUD] shall . . . (5) administer the programs and activities relating to housing and urban
            development in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of this subchapter;”

            Click to access fairhousingact.pdf

            Like

          2. RE: “The authority for the Obama era regulation called AFFH is directly and explicitly found in the act…”

            So what? It’s the radical AFFH rule that Trump terminated. The original act is not affected.

            Like

          3. So what? Not much. Only that your claim that the Fair Housing Act had nothing to do with the AFFH regulation was – to be polite let’s say – one of those “alternative facts” one hears so much about.

            By the way. what was “radical” about Obama’s regulation? I am certain that – without running to the Google – you have no idea. “Radical” is just a word that you folks apply to just about everything that is actually a popular idea that Republicans resist.

            Like

          4. RE: “Only that your claim that the Fair Housing Act had nothing to do with the AFFH regulation was – to be polite let’s say – one of those ‘alternative facts’ one hears so much about.”

            Are you drunk? YOU’RE the one who brought up the Fair Housing Act and accused Trump of sabotaging it. In fact, the FHA remains intact. Only the AFFH rule has been terminated, and it’s termination was the reason for Trump’s remarks at the rally. Your criticisms of Trump’s remarks are therefore ignorant/unfounded/without merit.

            RE: “By the way. what was ‘radical’ about Obama’s regulation?”

            Exactly what I wrote: “It would have imposed federal and regional controls on suburban development, literally removing locally-elected governments from the process of deciding how funds are used to support their own neighborhoods.”

            Or, you could have read the link I provided.

            Like

Leave a comment