[Discussion] 2016 Presidential Elections Vote-All

The US Presidential Elections catch-all. All discussion related to the ongoing campaigns can go here.

Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yup. Once again, it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner.

Did anyone actually say this?

Has Mike Pence denounced any of the racist, misogynist, islamophobic and homophobic behaviors of Trump's followers in as stern terms as he did Hillary? Has Trump? Has CNN? Has *literally* anyone on the 'right'?


Let me Google that for you

Even if he hadn't, that is far different from saying that it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner. No one is saying this, not even Trump.

farley3k wrote:

I don't even disagree much but I do think that we have been reading for months how Trumpists have a variety of views many would call deplorable, but when some actually calls them deplorable suddenly we are supposed to be shocked.

Okay, but like... even the facts you cited are pretty easy to poke holes in, for example

1. The overwhelming majority of Trump aficionados support his proposed ban on Muslim immigrants

2. two-thirds of them register unfavorable views of American Muslims.

Clicking through, the source here is a poll taken in February, during the primary, when the Republican vote was split like 3 or 4 ways. So is it fair or correct to say that the same percentage of Trump supporters feel that way today, in the dog days of a general? No. Many of the other stats come from PPP, which is fairly problematic itself, and the actual survey reads like a joke survey, with questions like "Which do you like better, Trump or Nickelback? Hipsters? Used car salesmen?"

That's not to say there isn't a component of people who support Trump who don't have deplorable beliefs - there definitely are. But what Hillary did was paint 45-50 *million* Americans with an extremely broad brush, and essentially dehumanize them, and the defense is paper-thin. It's wrong when Trump does that, and it should be wrong when Hillary does, too.

"In as stern terms" was a part of that sentence there, Nomad. Here's what Pence had to say about Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK:
“I’m not really sure why the media keeps dropping David Duke’s name. Donald Trump has denounced David Duke repeatedly. We don’t want his support and we don’t want the support of the people who think like him."

In my opinion, that's a pretty damn weak condemnation, considering that Trump's own son is tweeting memes from white nationalists on a weekly basis, and Trump supporters are regularly assaulting protesters at Trump rallies now.

Edited to add:
https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/...

David Duke, on Mike Pence

wordsmythe wrote:
Secretary Clinton wrote:

Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

I think that's what Norman is objecting to as coming from a professing Christian, and I'm with him on that. Christianity has, at its core, the concept of a redemption beyond what humans could effect or merit. A lot of the speech was more tightly worded than that.

Yeah, whether one thinks it was a good thing or a bad thing, I think there's no denying the religious baggage of choosing that word. I'd even go further, and say I'm pretty confident it was a conscious choice on the part of the Clinton campaign to reach people with emotion whom they can't reach with reason.

edit:

NormanTheIntern wrote:

That's not to say there isn't a component of people who support Trump who don't have deplorable beliefs - there definitely are. But what Hillary did was paint 45-50 *million* Americans with an extremely broad brush, and essentially dehumanize them, and the defense is paper-thin. It's wrong when Trump does that, and it should be wrong when Hillary does, too.

Granting for the sake of argument that it's wrong in both cases, maybe it's worth pointing out the different levels of wrong. Like I said in one of the final comments in the old election thread, Hillary's dehumanizing of these people won't do a whole lot to make their daily lives worse.

If Hillary is elected President, she'll probably propose a lot of policies honestly and reasonably designed to meet the needs of this 'basket'. She won't dehumanize them in a way that will encourage real violence against them to win votes or stay popular. Trump will.

tl;dr: Hillary's sin is venial; Trump's is mortal?

This is what Trump condones, and Mike Pence condones through mildest of poo-pooing:

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Secretary Clinton wrote:

Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

I think that's what Norman is objecting to as coming from a professing Christian, and I'm with him on that. Christianity has, at its core, the concept of a redemption beyond what humans could effect or merit. A lot of the speech was more tightly worded than that.

Yeah, whether one thinks it was a good thing or a bad thing, I think there's no denying the religious baggage of choosing that word. I'd even go further, and say I'm pretty confident it was a conscious choice on the part of the Clinton campaign to reach people with emotion whom they can't reach with reason.

Maybe it's just me being naive again, but I don't think Hillary meant that these Trump supporters were irredeemable as human beings in the Christian sense, but more in the sense that their behavior and thoughts were so ingrained as to be irredeemable. Yes, there's always a small chance that these people could change their mindsets given enough divine intervention, but it's often so minute that they may as well be irredeemable for most people to accomplish without hat divine intervention. Even if a boulder could be broken given the right tool, if all people have available are their fists, then they are eventually going to proclaim the boulder unbreakable even if it's not technically true.

bekkilyn wrote:

Maybe it's just me being naive again, but I don't think Hillary meant that these Trump supporters were irredeemable as human beings in the Christian sense, but more in the sense that their behavior and thoughts were so ingrained as to be irredeemable. Yes, there's always a small chance that these people could change their mindsets given enough divine intervention, but it's often so minute that they may as well be irredeemable for most people to accomplish without hat divine intervention. Even if a boulder could be broken given the right tool, if all people have available are their fists, then they are eventually going to proclaim the boulder unbreakable even if it's not technically true.

To use a real-world example from a few pages back there's essentially zero chance that the uncle of Kehama's nine-year-old is going to wake up tomorrow thinking that all Muslims aren't terrorists set on the destruction of America and that they may actually be OK people (and Americans).

bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Secretary Clinton wrote:

Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

I think that's what Norman is objecting to as coming from a professing Christian, and I'm with him on that. Christianity has, at its core, the concept of a redemption beyond what humans could effect or merit. A lot of the speech was more tightly worded than that.

Yeah, whether one thinks it was a good thing or a bad thing, I think there's no denying the religious baggage of choosing that word. I'd even go further, and say I'm pretty confident it was a conscious choice on the part of the Clinton campaign to reach people with emotion whom they can't reach with reason.

Maybe it's just me being naive again, but I don't think Hillary meant that these Trump supporters were irredeemable as human beings in the Christian sense, but more in the sense that their behavior and thoughts were so ingrained as to be irredeemable. Yes, there's always a small chance that these people could change their mindsets given enough divine intervention, but it's often so minute that they may as well be irredeemable for most people to accomplish without hat divine intervention. Even if a boulder could be broken given the right tool, if all people have available are their fists, then they are eventually going to proclaim the boulder unbreakable even if it's not technically true.

Obligatory Dr Who clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKSE...

Fast-forward to 4m30s if you just want the payoff.

Tee hee.

(Still cool to tag the old way? :))

NormanTheIntern wrote:

But what Hillary did was paint 45-50 *million* Americans with an extremely broad brush, and essentially dehumanize them, and the defense is paper-thin. It's wrong when Trump does that, and it should be wrong when Hillary does, too.

...and when she walked it back, that was acceptable, right? No? She's stuck with the baggage associated with an ill-thought-out comment?

At least Trump also has to carry the baggage from his comments, right?

Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yup. Once again, it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner.

Did anyone actually say this?

On GWJ, no one has said this thankfully. However this sentiment is common in alt-rights/anti-PC spaces online. "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white" is often repeated by white nationalists. David Duke's even tweeted out a slightly different version in response to Clinton's comments: "Anti-fascist is a code word for anti-white".

https://archive.is/qDf8U

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

But what Hillary did was paint 45-50 *million* Americans with an extremely broad brush, and essentially dehumanize them, and the defense is paper-thin. It's wrong when Trump does that, and it should be wrong when Hillary does, too.

...and when she walked it back, that was acceptable, right? No? She's stuck with the baggage associated with an ill-thought-out comment?

There may be longer lasting political fallout from her comment - I'm personally responding to the idea brought up that it was a fair a reasonable thing to say.

bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Yeah, whether one thinks it was a good thing or a bad thing, I think there's no denying the religious baggage of choosing that word. I'd even go further, and say I'm pretty confident it was a conscious choice on the part of the Clinton campaign to reach people with emotion whom they can't reach with reason.

Maybe it's just me being naive again, but I don't think Hillary meant that these Trump supporters were irredeemable as human beings in the Christian sense, but more in the sense that their behavior and thoughts were so ingrained as to be irredeemable. Yes, there's always a small chance that these people could change their mindsets given enough divine intervention, but it's often so minute that they may as well be irredeemable for most people to accomplish without hat divine intervention. Even if a boulder could be broken given the right tool, if all people have available are their fists, then they are eventually going to proclaim the boulder unbreakable even if it's not technically true.

Sorry, I was unclear--I think it was chosen for rhetorical effect. For the effect the baggage of that term will have when people hear it. Whether they are factually irredeemable or if it's actually less than half of them wasn't the relevant part. I think the goal was to get people to hear it and think that they were the half outside the basket, and get them to think about whether they want to keep supporting Trump and stay associated with the basket cases.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

At least Trump also has to carry the baggage from his comments, right?

That's probably Chris Christie's job.

Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yup. Once again, it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner.

Did anyone actually say this?

Has Mike Pence denounced any of the racist, misogynist, islamophobic and homophobic behaviors of Trump's followers in as stern terms as he did Hillary? Has Trump? Has CNN? Has *literally* anyone on the 'right'?


Let me Google that for you

Even if he hadn't, that is far different from saying that it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner. No one is saying this, not even Trump.

FWIW on the most recent 538 pod cast one of the panel expressed a similar sentiment, though it possed as it is more of a faux pas to call out someone as racist than to act in a racist fashion.

Posting here since it's dependent on Clinton getting elected: Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin Says Conservatives May Have To Turn To Physical Violence

“The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what? The blood. Of who? The tyrants to be sure, but who else? The patriots,” he said. “Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren. I have nine children. It breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood that is needed to redeem something, to reclaim something, that we through our apathy and our indifference have given away. Don’t let it happen.”
OG_slinger wrote:

To use a real-world example from a few pages back there's essentially zero chance that the uncle of Kehama's nine-year-old is going to wake up tomorrow thinking that all Muslims aren't terrorists set on the destruction of America and that they may actually be OK people (and Americans).

Exactly. And the uncle in question is my ex-wife's brother, and I didn't even know he was at her parents house when my son was out there. Over the last few years he's taken an intense interest in politics which he never did before. All of his sources, however, are from facebook groups like Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, etc. He views these as the true sources of information and every major news outlet as being in the pocket of the Clinton's specifically. The amount of power that he seems to believe the Clinton's wield is truly staggering. They've basically taken the place of the illuminati.

As for a separate thread of the conversation about "calling racists racists is worse than doing racist things". What I immediately thought of was the popular argument that Obama is really the one who is causing a racial divide in the country. I believe the logic is that by him saying the US has a race problem and that the police have a race problem, he is somehow making the problem worse?

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Posting here since it's dependent on Clinton getting elected: Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin Says Conservatives May Have To Turn To Physical Violence

“The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what? The blood. Of who? The tyrants to be sure, but who else? The patriots,” he said. “Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren. I have nine children. It breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood that is needed to redeem something, to reclaim something, that we through our apathy and our indifference have given away. Don’t let it happen.”

Sweet mercy! Why are so many people so eager to go through another Civil War? Do they also not realize that if Trump wins and follows through on his threats to attack Iran and nuke whoever we like, that a lot of our children's and children's children's blood could be spilled too and not in some self righteous patriotic delusion?

Garrcia wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yup. Once again, it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner.

Did anyone actually say this?

Has Mike Pence denounced any of the racist, misogynist, islamophobic and homophobic behaviors of Trump's followers in as stern terms as he did Hillary? Has Trump? Has CNN? Has *literally* anyone on the 'right'?


Let me Google that for you

Even if he hadn't, that is far different from saying that it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner. No one is saying this, not even Trump.

FWIW on the most recent 538 pod cast one of the panel expressed a similar sentiment, though it possed as it is more of a faux pas to call out someone as racist than to act in a racist fashion.

On 538 they also did an interesting job of parsing Clinton's statement. They seemed to basically support the notion that, if you lumped all of the various groups she mentioned together, you probably could reach half of Trump supporters.

So perhaps she was technically accurate. I still think it was a bad tactic to say it.

One of the more subtle issues I have with her statement is the context. It was played for yuks - the audience was laughing. It felt so gross and depressing to listen to.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

But what Hillary did was paint 45-50 *million* Americans with an extremely broad brush, and essentially dehumanize them, and the defense is paper-thin. It's wrong when Trump does that, and it should be wrong when Hillary does, too.

...and when she walked it back, that was acceptable, right? No? She's stuck with the baggage associated with an ill-thought-out comment?

There may be longer lasting political fallout from her comment - I'm personally responding to the idea brought up that it was a fair a reasonable thing to say.

I think she was absolutely in the right. When we are talking about actual supporters, which I don't consider you one, Norman, I believe the number is well over 50% being deplorable human beings.

Morning Joe thinks Hillary has a point on Trump fans: Wanting to ban a religion is ‘deplorable’

“An outrageously high number of Trump supporters support a Muslim ban,” said co-host Joe Scarborough, referencing polls of Trump fans. “[Trump supporters] support a national database, where if you’re a Muslim you have to check in, I guess. Instead of the Star of David, maybe they put another patch on you. An outrageous number actually said they wanted to make Islam illegal in the United States. You can call that a lot of things, I call it deplorable.”

The show then ran a clip of vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence refusing to say if notorious racist David Duke was “deplorable” or not.

“This is the kind of thing that makes you die inside,” co-host Mika Brzezinski said of the clip.

“I guess by their definition, nobody’s deplorable,” Scarborough said. “Idi Amin’s not deplorable, certainly Vladimir Putin is not only not deplorable, he’s a boyfriend.”

I find it very telling that we are having so much discussion about Hillarys comment when there are so many wildly insulting comments made by trump (Mexican rapists, Pocahontas, etc). I think it shows that even those who support trump have higher expectations of Hillary.

Colin Powell Calls Trump A “National Disgrace” In Personal Emails

In an Aug. 21 email from Powell to Miller, he blasted Trump for embarking on a “racist” movement that believes President Obama was not born in the US.
“Yup, the whole birther movement was racist,” Powell wrote. “That’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim.”
Powell told BuzzFeed News, “I have no further comment. I’m not denying it.”

Libertarian Gary Johnson Makes Presidential Ballot In All 50 States

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will be the first third-party presidential candidate to make the ballot in all 50 states, plus Washington, DC, since 1996.
farley3k wrote:

Libertarian Gary Johnson Makes Presidential Ballot In All 50 States

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will be the first third-party presidential candidate to make the ballot in all 50 states, plus Washington, DC, since 1996.

Glad to see this. Third parties really shouldn't have to fight so hard.

Edit: should the thread hero image be updated?

Well, Powell does speak so well and he's so well spoken.

farley3k wrote:

Colin Powell Calls Trump A “National Disgrace” In Personal Emails

In an Aug. 21 email from Powell to Miller, he blasted Trump for embarking on a “racist” movement that believes President Obama was not born in the US.
“Yup, the whole birther movement was racist,” Powell wrote. “That’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim.”
Powell told BuzzFeed News, “I have no further comment. I’m not denying it.”

He's not wrong.

OG_slinger wrote:

Well, Powell does speak so well and he's so well spoken.

*groan*

Chairman_Mao wrote:
farley3k wrote:

Libertarian Gary Johnson Makes Presidential Ballot In All 50 States

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will be the first third-party presidential candidate to make the ballot in all 50 states, plus Washington, DC, since 1996.

Glad to see this. Third parties really shouldn't have to fight so hard.

Edit: should the thread hero image be updated?

This makes me happy.