|
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. |
On June 08 2016 07:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 07:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:11 Gorsameth wrote:Lot of deflection and pointless words, not a single fact present. So yeah. He has jack shit and was blowing steam for news air time. Guess something he said is finally coming back to bite him. Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue How is this not relevant? Again, if the judge displays obvious bias a motion can be filed to have him replaced. If big judicial mistakes are made (potentially the one you highlighted) an Appeal can correct them. What you don't do is make no formal protest and instead slam a judge infront of the national media from your position as Presidential candidate. The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best. Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
Well to be fair, Trump still has GGTemplar too:
On June 08 2016 08:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:05 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:56 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades. Every white male is a racist to the left That's not how it works, only the ones who say and do racist things are. He got called a racist for saying we should halt immigration from muslims. They just want to make everything about race when it has nothing to do with race it has to do with facts and national security. I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism. You do understand that your argument was that "the left call all white males racist, that means that if a white male is called a racist by the left then no matter what he has said or done, he must not be racist", right? An argument that incidentally also exonerates Hitler. Now I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, just that maybe instead of going "the left calls all white males racist" and dismissing it based on that, you should actually look at what Trump has said and done and base the decision upon that. Because otherwise we have to dismiss a lot of charges of racism and some of them will cover racists, like Hitler, and Trump. I have never made that conclusion. I'm sure some whites are dirty racists in our country but widespread or dangerous? I think not. Western white countries are literally the least racist countries in the world and that's not a racist thing to say that's a fact. How many refugees has the West taken in just from this Syrian conflict compared to actual Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain or UAE? The west is so anti-racist places like the UK and Germany are literally passing authoritarian laws to censor any sort of criticism of immigration because they're too afraid of 'looking racist'. Nowhere else in the world would you get the amount of humanitarian aid and tolerance shown by Western countries. The whole 'radical conservative backwards racist conservative' hoax is literally white guilt indoctrination. You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said. You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does. Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. Out of curiosity, what are some statements that you do actually consider to be racist or bigoted? Because between his comments and actions surrounding Muslims, Mexicans, women, the disabled, and other groups of people, I'm kind of at a loss as to what's left besides him explicitly saying "I hate all people categorized as Group/ Race/ Sex/ Religion X because I'm a bigot". Sure I'll help you out. Him saying all mexican people are rapists and criminals would be racist. He did not say this. The media sure as hell sold it like that though. Him saying all muslims are violent extremists and should be kept out of the country. He did not say this. Once again, the media sold it like he did though. Him making jokes about a disabled person's disabilities because he thinks it's funny to make fun of disabled people. He did not do this. The media sold it like he did though. Him making fat jokes or whatever he did about Rosie O'Donnel when she started talking shit to him first is fair game. If someone insults your appearance (your hair being fake for instance) you have been given the greenlight to fight back. To do so is not sexist.
Oh come on. Everyone knows he said and did these things. His supporters know he's a bigot and don't care because he acts politically incorrect and like a reality star, which resonates with these people. And because they care more about antiestablishment/ ending political bullshit than they do about racial and sexual equity (and they're entitled to prioritize their preferences in this way, but that doesn't mean Trump *isn't* bigoted anymore). The Republican party knows he's a bigot. And certainly those against him know. It's not even a topic for debate anymore. The question isn't whether or not Trump is a bigot; the question is which group is he going to alienate or offend next.
On June 08 2016 08:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:51 Plansix wrote:
Trump is a sexist asshole. And like most powerful people, he can find any number of useful idiots to defend him. Yep. Like how he employed the first female construction lead in history and she had nothing but positive things to say about him.
That's like saying "I can't be sexist/ racist because I have a friend who's female/ black".
|
On June 08 2016 11:32 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 11:25 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 11:15 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 10:59 kwizach wrote:
oBlade, did you somehow not read or understand my numerous posts in which I start by saying that Trump thinks the judge is biased against him (your point 1.) and then present his reasoning? What exactly is supposed to be your disagreement with my posts? Oh, are you agreeing with me that the first premise of his argument is that the judge is biased? Trump is claiming that the judge is biased, and I presented the reasoning he put forward to explain why (because he's "Mexican", and because Trump is "building a wall"). I'm still not sure what is supposed to be your disagreement with my posts that you responded to. You don't understand that what you think is his conclusion I think is his first premise?
"The judge is biased against me" is Trump's claim (whether or not he sincerely believes it is another matter -- I'm pretty sure he's at least in part cynically trying to avoid looking like the fraud that he is by claiming he's being persecuted). His reasoning is how he explains why the judge is, according to him, biased against him. Logically, the conclusion of his reasoning is his initial claim.
|
Hold the phone everyone, we can be sure Trump's concern about his judge's bias is genuine and rooted in reason. After all, Trump's lawyer is a Clinton supporter, too, and Trump will soon drop him once he finds out.
|
By the way, did anyone else watch Hillary's speech? I didn't think it was as strong as it could have been, honestly. She was right to underline the historic nature of her nomination and the proximity between her positions and Sanders', and she was right as well to go after Trump and push a message of unity. I do think, however, that she should have put more emphasis than she did on policy (an effective way of further driving home the point that she is ready to be president and not Trump), at the very least by spending more time on the issues she'd want to address. I feel like it would be helpful to promote herself more as the candidate who can achieve real progress on the issues that matter (and how she has a history of caring about people), and not only as the candidate who brings people together (even though it's an important part).
|
On June 08 2016 12:06 kwizach wrote:
By the way, did anyone else watch Hillary's speech? I didn't think it was as strong as it could have been, honestly. She was right to underline the historic nature of her nomination and the proximity between her positions and Sanders', and she was right as well to go after Trump and push a message of unity. I do think, however, that she should have put more emphasis than she did on policy (an effective way of further driving home the point that she is ready to be president and not Trump), at the very least by spending more time on the issues she'd want to address. I feel like it would be helpful to promote herself more as the candidate who can achieve real progress on the issues that matter (and how she has a history of caring about people), and not only as the candidate who brings people together.
I would argue there is plenty of time for policy and that people just get bored of it by the end of the election. Right now, the single objective of the democratic party is unity. If the democrats can get somewhat decent unity, its gonna be hard to lose. I think that right now, as Sanders supporters are foaming at the mouth, it is important to pander to them to the fullest extent.
|
On June 08 2016 12:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 12:06 kwizach wrote:
By the way, did anyone else watch Hillary's speech? I didn't think it was as strong as it could have been, honestly. She was right to underline the historic nature of her nomination and the proximity between her positions and Sanders', and she was right as well to go after Trump and push a message of unity. I do think, however, that she should have put more emphasis than she did on policy (an effective way of further driving home the point that she is ready to be president and not Trump), at the very least by spending more time on the issues she'd want to address. I feel like it would be helpful to promote herself more as the candidate who can achieve real progress on the issues that matter (and how she has a history of caring about people), and not only as the candidate who brings people together. I would argue there is plenty of time for policy and that people just get bored of it by the end of the election. Right now, the single objective of the democratic party is unity. If the democrats can get somewhat decent unity, its gonna be hard to lose. I think that right now, as Sanders supporters are foaming at the mouth, it is important to pander to them to the fullest extent.
Yes, but the two aren't antithetical. She could also have extended an olive branch to Sanders supporters by putting more emphasis on the issues that matter to her and the fact that she's ready to address them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's the weird thing about hillary's campaign so far. the big speeches are worse than her one on one meetings with voters. when hillary meets with small groups of voters, local organizations etc she is all about policy and solutions. her campaign might be too slow to adjust and doing her a disservice.
|
I thought the speech was pretty good. Given how this has been going so far I'm honestly not sure how many voters actually seem to be interested in policies. The unity and stronger together course seems to be a good one.
|
i liked the "this isn't about democrats v republican but how we want to define america" framing
|
On June 08 2016 12:19 Nyxisto wrote:
I thought the speech was pretty good. Given how this has been going so far I'm honestly not sure how many voters actually seem to be interested in policies. The unity and stronger together course seems to be a good one.
Yeah, I would argue Bernie supporters are more enamored with his perspectives than his policies.
|
On June 08 2016 12:24 ticklishmusic wrote:
i liked the "this isn't about democrats v republican but how we want to define america" framing
I mean I like it as well, but I don't think it's as effective on average when it comes to blue-collar men, so I think including a bit more policy/problem-solving would help with regards to that demographic.
|
On June 08 2016 12:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 12:24 ticklishmusic wrote:
i liked the "this isn't about democrats v republican but how we want to define america" framing I mean I like it as well, but I don't think it's as effective on average when it comes to blue-collar men, so I think including a bit more policy/problem-solving would help with regards to that demographic.
My experience with these types is that they are really concerned with "What is the bottom line? What are you going to do for me? My family is really struggling and there's no signs of it getting better"
Obamacare raised health insurance $800/year? Voting Republican. They will need to be convinced that there is a real, material benefit that they can believe in.
Edit:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XvCUkTw.png) I am having an absolute BLAST reading this live thread on the Bernie subreddit ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/usc29zT.png)
|
It was obvious they hated America.
They were voting to destroy it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i dont think she can win the blue collar men. she can make a lot of inroad with young professionals and white collar suburbanites. i haven't seen the speech but i expect a serious effort to brand as stability and governance to win some moderate republicans.
the thing with the new media environment is that there is the possibility of running multiple parallel narratives by targeting different media platforms with different messages. might be what's going on here.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow Chuck Todd made a good point on current politics in this country.
|
I would hope he would continue if people keep voting for him in his state. I am not a huge fan of Sanders, but that is what people who believe in things do.
|
Sounds like an onion headline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
