EPTi think you are missing the point of a pivot to the middle. a pivot is not to pick up people for whom those issues are the main ones. the pivot picks up people who are looking for reasons to vote for trump, aka signs that he's not really crazy. and i think you are underestimating him if your knee jerk response is to say "well he IS crazy."
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2695
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
i think you are missing the point of a pivot to the middle. a pivot is not to pick up people for whom those issues are the main ones. the pivot picks up people who are looking for reasons to vote for trump, aka signs that he's not really crazy. and i think you are underestimating him if your knee jerk response is to say "well he IS crazy." | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14210 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24361 Posts
Trump voters aren't going to go anywhere except maybe Cruz in which case the establishment candidate (consolidated or not) still loses. Cruz has played a good game, meaning the establishment will have to pick between him and Trump. EDIT: I see Rand Paul going all George Taylor after the election no matter what happens. For Reference | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 24 2015 12:30 Nyxisto wrote: So just to be clear, you don't think stuff like this is sexist: Right, I can just see his hatred of women oozing through. Oh yeah and that ironic "geniuses" comment really betrays his hatred of America's military leaders. It's all too rich. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On December 24 2015 12:30 Nyxisto wrote: So just to be clear, you don't think stuff like this is sexist: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/331907383771148288 How exactly do you get statistics on unreported crimes? | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 24 2015 12:55 IgnE wrote: @gorsameth, nyx, and tenthdoc i think you are missing the point of a pivot to the middle. a pivot is not to pick up people for whom those issues are the main ones. the pivot picks up people who are looking for reasons to vote for trump, aka signs that he's not really crazy. and i think you are underestimating him if your knee jerk response is to say "well he IS crazy." I just don't agree that that's the point of a pivot to the middle. What you're saying is that somehow bringing palatable positions the opposition also offers will make the unpalatable ones he offers that the opposition doesn't go away-which is nonsense unless he straight up recants them. That's why McCain and Romney both failed at it, they couldn't make the unpalatable ones go away. You can't just push the signs you're not really crazy, you have to kill all the signs you're crazy too. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
On December 24 2015 15:21 killa_robot wrote: How exactly do you get statistics on unreported crimes? You estimate it based on some other known factors that are in some way connected to estimated value. Not saying Trumps number is right but practice in itself is widely used. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On December 24 2015 12:41 ticklishmusic wrote: lmao Rand Paul isn't even a real doctor What would you call an Ophthalmologist? Rand graduated from Duke Medical School...so...yah. | ||
|
Cowboy64
115 Posts
If you want women in the military (I can't see why you would, but that's another issue entirely) than you have to accept the consequences of your preference. One of my biggest problems with politics these days is the idea that any policy, no matter how well-intentioned, will somehow not have unintended consequences. Putting women in the military sounds is very inclusive and nice, but it has an ugly side and we should be willing to address that ugly side without positing a candy-land world where bad things will magically stop happening. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On December 25 2015 02:22 Cowboy64 wrote: Is that tweet supposed to be sexist against men, or women? I'm not seeing either, rather what I'm seeing is yet again, Trump is stating a truth of life in an politically incorrect way. No one disagrees with the fact that sexual assault/rape in the military is a huge issue, one that not only hurts the morale and cohesiveness of the units, but also morally indicts the kind of culture that turns a blind eye to uncomfortable truths. If you want women in the military (I can't see why you would, but that's another issue entirely) than you have to accept the consequences of your preference. One of my biggest problems with politics these days is the idea that any policy, no matter how well-intentioned, will somehow not have unintended consequences. Putting women in the military sounds is very inclusive and nice, but it has an ugly side and we should be willing to address that ugly side without positing a candy-land world where bad things will magically stop happening. That men and women cannot serve together in the military without consequences of sexual violence is not a "truth of life," and in stating that it is, you've made it clear that you're unable to perceive the sexism in Trump's statement because you, like Trump, maintain sexist notions as to how the genders interact. Sexism needn't be against a single sex for it to count as sexism afterall. All it takes in this case is for one to assume that, because of perceived gender essential traits relative to men and women, the sexes ought not be mixed. After entertaining this vulgar notion for a brief moment, one ought then realize that there are militaries throughout the world that commingle the sexes and yet are without our problems of sexual violence. Are folks like you and Trump really going to suggest that our military is somehow inferior to that of Israel for lack of discipline? If we can train men to sit still for 2 days in order to take a shot, we can train them to not rape the women serving next to them. To believe otherwise is sexist and anti-American (how's that for some Trump language)  Edit: Blitzkrieg added a valid point, but I'd argue that male-on-male sexual assault in the military is also quite bound up with a discussion of what exactly being a "man in uniform" entails. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
If anything is sexist it is that you all immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was men raping women. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 25 2015 02:31 farvacola wrote: That men and women cannot serve together in the military without consequences of sexual violence is not a "truth of life," and in stating that it is, you've made it clear that you're unable to perceive the sexism in Trump's statement because you, like Trump, maintain sexist notions as to how the genders interact. Rephrased, the unwashed who harbor "sexist notions" cannot notice it in others. And that might just be the best starter to why you can't have a debate on Trump, who he is, what he believes, if he's America's greatest hope, enemy, somewhere in between. First you have to own up to your own sexist inclinations at the outset because that psychology is all that stands between disagreeing with me and agreeing with me. Morpheus's 'Free your mind' kind of shit (better hustled off in a religion thread if you ask me). Add women in the military in all assignments to a debate topic that's out the window, too. Flipped around, it is the narrow view of sexism and the theory of sexist conditioning/upbringing that conditions how liberals view Trump supporters and his policies or other conservative policies. They can't imagine someone like Cruz suggesting (WaPo) that "we shouldn't view the military as a cauldron for social experiments." (ref to transgenders). There isn't really a compromise viewpoint, it's one side gets its way or the other. On December 25 2015 02:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Do none of you realize that most unreported sexual assaults in the military are actually male on male? If anything is sexist it is that you all immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was men raping women. All that third-wave feminist conditioning | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On December 25 2015 03:49 Deathstar wrote: You think it's wise to use the military as a social experiment? How is letting men and women serve together a social experiment? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 25 2015 03:49 Deathstar wrote: You think it's wise to use the military as a social experiment? I don't know how having women and men working together is a social experiment. Israel has been doing it for more than half a century. | ||
|
ZeroChrome
Canada1001 Posts
On December 25 2015 04:01 Nyxisto wrote: I don't know how having women and men working together is a social experiment. Israel has been doing it for more than half a century. The military is not the same thing as just "women and men working together" | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 25 2015 04:30 ZeroChrome wrote: The military is not the same thing as just "women and men working together" You're right it's actually not. As a public institution build around rules and discipline I think it's especially important to not discriminate based on gender. It's very questionable if a soldier who can not keep his or her hands of other soldiers should be serving at all. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Democratic presidential candidates on Thursday criticized the Obama administration's plans to begin deporting potentially hundreds of families that arrived in the United States illegally since last year. The Washington Post reported Wednesday night that federal immigration officials are preparing raids that would target the families and could begin as soon as January. A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed the plans. The news, arriving on the eve of the holidays, sparked concerns and outrage from Democrats and immigration advocates. They argued that the effort would target largely women and children fleeing violence from Central America, whom critics say should be treated as refugees. "Hillary Clinton has real concerns about these reports, especially as families are coming together during this holiday season," said Xochitl Hinojosa, a spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. "She believes it is critical that everyone has a full and fair hearing, and that our country provides refuge to those that need it. And we should be guided by a spirit of humanity and generosity as we approach these issues." Her chief rival for the nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said he was "very disturbed" by the reports, adding: “As we spend time with our families this holiday season, we who are parents should ask ourselves what we would do if our children faced the danger and violence these children do? How far would we go to protect them?” Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, another Democratic presidential candidate, called for an end to "mindless deportations." Source | ||
| ||
