Politics 2016 (election edition)

[calvino]

Can we just start a new thread for this anthem business? The U.S. Constitution covered this.

 

 

Hoping that Senator Clinton gets well soon and gets right back in there and speaks to the people on how she will try to encourage a political/social/economical climate where we all will prosper (as much as possible) and be safe. She needs not to speak of the Trump name, until the debates; including the commercials - fuck him and everyone against her; she really needs to start reaching out to people who  are leaning towards her. She has been focusing too much on Trump and not reaching out more to the Democratic/liberal base voters.She had a bounce out of the convention, yes,  many do - but she had a bounce with those undecideds and the Bernie supporters, because she was talking about issues, not just focusing on Trump. 

[KevinG]

Hoping that Senator Clinton gets well soon and gets right back in there and speaks to the people on how she will try to encourage a political/social/economical climate where we all will prosper (as much as possible) and be safe. She needs not to speak of the Trump name, until the debates; including the commercials - fuck him and everyone against her; she really needs to start reaching out to people who are leaning towards her. She has been focusing too much on Trump and not reaching out more to the Democratic/liberal base voters.She had a bounce out of the convention, yes, many do - but she had a bounce with those undecideds and the Bernie supporters, because she was talking about issues, not just focusing on Trump.

This illness couldn't come at a worse time. It is surprising that Trump had not tweeted about it. And so far he has only taken the high road and wished her well, when asked. This after Clinton recently called Trump supporters a basket of deplorable.

 

Clinton needs to release all medical records and have a press conference. Just put it all out there. Be done with it. Also at the debates she needs to utterly destroy Trump. Show what most people know, he has no command of the issues. And his policies both foreign and domestic are dangerous.

[lost highway]

So here's something I'm wrestling with:

PC caution and the Left- re: "basket of deplorables".

 

I'm often an advocate for political correctness not for decorum, but for both inclusiveness and logic (see my pointlessly finger waggy detracting from a perfectly good discussion of music over a member's use of the term "ghey".) When someone on the right casts the danger net over all immigrants and Muslims it's not only dehumanizing, it's factually false.

 

What are we to do on the left as a certain faction of the GOP points towards elitist prejudice when there is data showing bigotry from a majority of Trump supporters?

 

The distinction here is the left is dismissing a percentage of our population not for nationality, sexuality, race, or religion. They are being dismissed because of what they choose to believe. Now, I've said myself that the Trump phenomenon is partly thanks to liberal arrogance in the face of outdated social norms finally becoming taboo (we scoff at men who slap co-workers butts, or people who casually use homophobic epithets). Really we should try to extend olive branches to the people in our community who are ignorant, it's the only way to bring the nation forward.

 

Nonetheless, when Clinton defined deplorables as a laundry list of "phobics" (Islamophobes, homophobes etc) and cast "about half" of Trump supporters into that basket she was right. Is that a punch that should be pulled- not in terms of political strategy (it was a political stumble) but in terms of ethical conversation?

[Winston Legthigh]

Nonetheless, when Clinton defined deplorables as a laundry list of "phobics" (Islamophobes, homophobes etc) and cast "about half" of Trump supporters into that basket she was right. Is that a punch that should be pulled- not in terms of political strategy (it was a political stumble) but in terms of ethical conversation?

It certainly doesn't help the cause to insult someone whose mind you want to change. 

[ih8music]

Accurate or not, it was an unforced error on Clinton's part.  I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for her to run against such an obvious con man, but anything you have to preface with "I know this is grossly generalistic, but" should be a RED FLAG to just stop.  Nothing good was going to come out of the other side of that sentence.

[KevinG]

It certainly doesn't help the cause to insult someone whose mind you want to change. 

 

I don't think Clinton has any intention of changing their minds.  These people will never vote for Clinton.    

 

The quote was pretty awful, not the message she intended mind you, but the way she said it.  Basket of Deplorables is super clunky phrasing and generalizing about half was super stupid.    

 

Her point was not change the minds of these people, it was to show the right leaning moderates.  She is saying that if you support Trump you are casting your lot with racists and bigots.  These people, more so in this election then others, have come out in support of Trump.  I have always said you are only as good as the company you keep.  David Duke has supported Trump, the KKK and other white supremacist groups have done the same.  In anyone who has a sense of decency would call these people deplorable (well maybe not Mike Pence).    

 

So Clinton is trying to embarrass these moderate voters.  As well she should.  Trump has consistently and constantly said racist, homophobic, xenophobic things.  Many of his supporters believe in these things.  But say you are a moderate, you don't believe that in the racist things Trump has said, or are anti KKK, you have to look at yourself and think what does that say about me and my vote that I support the same person that David Duke does.  

[Lammycat]

What she said pales when compared to the crap that has come out of Trump's mouth. Actually, she spoke the truth.

 

It's absurd the focus being made on this one phrase she made when there are mountains of false claims, blatant lies, misinformation, etc. spewing from Trump's mouth on a daily basis, not to mention mocking of the disabled, inciting supporters to violence, and borderline acts of treason with the Russia plea,

 

Maybe people have simply gotten so u

ed to his dangerous rhetoric that now Clinton's comment seems outlandish?

[ih8music]

So Clinton is trying to embarrass these moderate voters.  As well she should.  Trump has consistently and constantly said racist, homophobic, xenophobic things.  Many of his supporters believe in these things.  But say you are a moderate, you don't believe that in the racist things Trump has said, or are anti KKK, you have to look at yourself and think what does that say about me and my vote that I support the same person that David Duke does.  

 

That's a terrible tactic, though.  No one is going to vote for a candidate (any candidate, let alone Clinton) because of the shame of keeping company with "deplorables."  Someone on the right could very easily (and probably has already) come up with a list of terrible/controversial people (they would probably call them "thugs") who have endorsed or spoken favorably of Hillary.  Is that going to change your vote?

 

She needs to stop talking about how bad Trump is and how bad some of his supporters are and make the case for why she should earn your/my/Hixter's vote.  The campaign has said that they're going shift in this direction, but it's well overdue.

[ih8music]

What she said pales when compared to the crap that has come out of Trump's mouth. Actually, she spoke the truth.

 

It's absurd the focus being made on this one phrase she made when there are mountains of false claims, blatant lies, misinformation, etc. spewing from Trump's mouth on a daily basis, not to mention mocking of the disabled, inciting supporters to violence, and borderline acts of treason with the Russia plea,

 

 

It's pretty well established that Trump is a terrible person for all the reasons outlined above.  And Hillary will have her surrogates and PACs out there to continue to inform anyone who's been living under a rock these past few months.  But she, the person who wants to be the next President, should not engage in this tit-for-tat banter.  It's like that old saying about wrestling with a pig - you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

 

The fact that Trump gets away with it doesn't make it ok for her.  Yes, it's unfair but it's reality.  Sometimes it sucks to be an adult.

[Winston Legthigh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-zJL9JuOLQ

[KevinG]

That's a terrible tactic, though.  No one is going to vote for a candidate (any candidate, let alone Clinton) because of the shame of keeping company with "deplorables."  Someone on the right could very easily (and probably has already) come up with a list of terrible/controversial people (they would probably call them "thugs") who have endorsed or spoken favorably of Hillary.  Is that going to change your vote?

 

Personally I think it can be effective, if done right.  I am not sure it work with Hillary.  With Trump it is a combination of the groups that support him and his rhetoric.  I am not sure a list of "thugs" that Hillary supports would change my vote, because Clinton has shown that she does not believe or stand for they stand for.  For example, if a "kill all baby kittens" group said that their members support Clinton, that might give me pause, but would not change my vote.  Now, if that group supported Clinton and she continually espoused rhetoric that kittens are bad, they should be kept out of the country and frequently used memes and iconography from that pr similar groups, and Tim Kane refused to denounce one of its leaders, etc. then I would be bothered and I would probably cast my vote elsewhere.  She isn't necessarily trying to get these moderates to vote for her, but not to vote for Trump.  That is the key.  I it would be extremely hard for someone who identifies themselves as a conservative to vote Clinton, but an easier job not to vote for Trump.  

 

She needs to stop talking about how bad Trump is and how bad some of his supporters are and make the case for why she should earn your/my/Hixter's vote.  The campaign has said that they're going shift in this direction, but it's well overdue.

 

  Yes, I agree, but that message does not get played in the media.  Post convention you barely heard a word form her.  Though she had a very rigorous campaign schedule.  All you heard about was the stupid shit Trump was doing.  The only reason Clinton is back in the news is the basket of deplorables and the fact she nearly died (or at least that is the way the media explains it).  Look for this to continue until the debates.  

[John Smith]

WTF is wrong with the governor of Kentucky? His speach at the values voter summit was seriously f'd up.

 

Why did the media take 4 days to discuss this? Or did I miss something? They were probably to busy speculating on who will replace dying Hillary on the ballot, or maybe Clintons deplorable a comment, perhaps they were still talking Ckinton Foundation? Or Bill's sex life or some thing negative and Clinton related. Anything but the governor of a state saying bloodshed may be needed if Clinton Wins. Fucking irresponsible idiot. I expect that sort of talk from idiots in bars, not from elected officials.

 

Edit: of course he was misunderstood, he was talking about the military an d sacrifice. Bull.

[Atticus]

Clinton could have done a lot of things better recently. But until she murders babies on live TV, I'm still voting for her.

[ih8music]

depends on who she kills

[ditty]

WTF is wrong with the governor of Kentucky? His speach at the values voter summit was seriously f'd up.

 

Why did the media take 4 days to discuss this? Or did I miss something? They were probably to busy speculating on who will replace dying Hillary on the ballot, or maybe Clintons deplorable a comment, perhaps they were still talking Ckinton Foundation? Or Bill's sex life or some thing negative and Clinton related. Anything but the governor of a state saying bloodshed may be needed if Clinton Wins. Fucking irresponsible idiot. I expect that sort of talk from idiots in bars, not from elected officials.

 

Edit: of course he was misunderstood, he was talking about the military an d sacrifice. Bull.

you ever feel like the more info is available, the less we hear?

[KevinG]

WTF is wrong with the governor of Kentucky? His speach at the values voter summit was seriously f'd up.

 

Why did the media take 4 days to discuss this? Or did I miss something? They were probably to busy speculating on who will replace dying Hillary on the ballot, or maybe Clintons deplorable a comment, perhaps they were still talking Ckinton Foundation? Or Bill's sex life or some thing negative and Clinton related. Anything but the governor of a state saying bloodshed may be needed if Clinton Wins. Fucking irresponsible idiot. I expect that sort of talk from idiots in bars, not from elected officials.

 

Edit: of course he was misunderstood, he was talking about the military an d sacrifice. Bull.

But calling Trump supporters deplorable, that is headline news.

[Passenger Sid]

South Park weighs in tomorrow night on Kaepernick in their season premiere. This should be good.

[KevinG]

Don't compare Trump to Hitler, it belittles Hitler

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/13/dont-compare-donald-trump-to-adolf-hitler-it-belittles-hitler/?postshare=6241473781440728&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.610ea3ef19b5

[Winston Legthigh]

But calling Trump supporters deplorable, that is headline news.

Should it not be?

 

How is this different than Romney's 47% quote? We nailed him on that. 

[John Smith]

Both are F'ups. Clinton could have phrased it better and Romney missed a golden opportunity. Had he used the stats correctly he could have sold the idea that 47% of the people who file taxes (primarily the working poor) pay $0. And used that as a stepping off point for economic arguments. Instead he tossed the crowd the red meat they came for and pushed the lazy waiting for a handout crowd are never boring for us story. With Clinton she said it better a couple of weeks ago and should have stuck to that approach.

 

It may have cost Romney the election, we shall see with Clinton, Though I don't think it will hurt her as bad because Trump and his supporters continue to act out.

[Winston Legthigh]

Both are F'ups. Clinton could have phrased it better and Romney missed a golden opportunity. Had he used the stats correctly he could have sold the idea that 47% of the people who file taxes (primarily the working poor) pay $0. And used that as a stepping off point for economic arguments. Instead he tossed the crowd the red meat they came for and pushed the lazy waiting for a handout crowd are never boring for us story. With Clinton she said it better a couple of weeks ago and should have stuck to that approach.

 

It may have cost Romney the election, we shall see with Clinton, Though I don't think it will hurt her as bad because Trump and his supporters continue to act out.

great response. I agree that it probably won't hurt her too badly.

[jff]

The real headline should be Loudmouth anti-Political Correctness jackasses butthurt now that they're on the receiving end of Politically Incorrect statement.

[Winston Legthigh]

It's not the "deplorables" being insulted that I'm worrying about. It's the undecided voters being insulted that worries me. Clinton basically told them that if you don't vote for her, you're racist. 

 

Knowing people's penchant of getting reactionary and defensive (rather than introspective) when they've been challenged/insulted, and knowing Clinton's lack of charisma, and knowing that you can catch more flies with sugar...

[jff]

It's not the "deplorables" being insulted that I'm worrying about. It's the undecided voters being insulted that worries me. Clinton basically told them that if you don't vote for her, you're racist. 

 

 

 

That's a huge stretch. She was clearly speaking about the entrenched Trump voter, and not undecideds or independents, or Johnson or Stein voters, or the Bernie or Bust crowd.  Only the voters who are all-in for Trump.

[Winston Legthigh]

That's a huge stretch. She was clearly speaking about the entrenched Trump voter, and not undecideds or independents, or Johnson or Stein voters, or the Bernie or Bust crowd.  Only the voters who are all-in for Trump.

oh, I guess I'm just READING IN BETWEEN THE LINES