|
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 September 10 2016 13:14 LegalLord wrote:
Had the Republican Party been capable of getting its shit together this would be a blowout for them. But instead they're losing to Hillary because they're just that bad.
This would be such an easy election for any halfway-competent Republican candidate.
Instead we have a pissing contest between two terrible candidates over who will do a worse job.
|
On September 10 2016 13:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote:On September 10 2016 13:12 oBlade wrote:
Clinton following the successful example of Mitt "47%" Romney and insulting voters. People who even contemplate voting for Trump would never vote for Hillary. This election is about driving turnout up. If insults would have any detrimental effect Trump would be polling in the negative numbers. Also she's probably right Was Mitt Romney right?
No, because his 47% was an absolutely asinine statistic that included a substantial number of Republican voters that would, in fact, vote for him. I believe it included everyone on Social Security, for example, who are the Republican's greatest demographic asset.
There's a significant difference between saying half the country will never vote for you because they get free money and saying half of the people voting for your opponent are deplorable. It's actually a massive difference-so massive I'm shocked you don't understand it.
|
United States42573 Posts
On September 10 2016 13:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote:People who even contemplate voting for Trump would never vote for Hillary. This election is about driving turnout up. If insults would have any detrimental effect Trump would be polling in the negative numbers. Also she's probably right Was Mitt Romney right?
It was overly simplistic but yes, he was. It was his conclusion that was wrong. He concluded half the country are net beneficiaries of taxes because they're lazy and that's not the problem, although I'm sure some are. But the cause is rampant wealth inequality, the reason a few people pay most the taxes and half the people pay none is because half the people have no money and with percentage taxes and crazy inequality that's just the result you'll get.
|
On September 10 2016 13:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 13:21 oBlade wrote:On September 10 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote:People who even contemplate voting for Trump would never vote for Hillary. This election is about driving turnout up. If insults would have any detrimental effect Trump would be polling in the negative numbers. Also she's probably right Was Mitt Romney right? No, because his 47% was an absolutely asinine statistic that included a substantial number of Republican voters that would, in fact, vote for him. I believe it included everyone on Social Security, for example, who are the Republican's greatest demographic asset. There's a significant difference between saying half the country will never vote for you because they get free money and saying half of the people voting for your opponent are deplorable. It's actually a massive difference-so massive I'm shocked you don't understand it.
You've done little to open my eyes because I find insulting the electorate an asshole thing for a candidate to do no matter whether the target is, say, 30 million Republican voters or 65-70 million Democratic ones.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The worst part of Mitt Romney's statement was, "and my job is not to worry about them." That really is a very un-presidential remark.
|
On September 10 2016 14:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 13:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 10 2016 13:21 oBlade wrote:On September 10 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote:People who even contemplate voting for Trump would never vote for Hillary. This election is about driving turnout up. If insults would have any detrimental effect Trump would be polling in the negative numbers. Also she's probably right Was Mitt Romney right? No, because his 47% was an absolutely asinine statistic that included a substantial number of Republican voters that would, in fact, vote for him. I believe it included everyone on Social Security, for example, who are the Republican's greatest demographic asset. There's a significant difference between saying half the country will never vote for you because they get free money and saying half of the people voting for your opponent are deplorable. It's actually a massive difference-so massive I'm shocked you don't understand it. You've done little to open my eyes because I find insulting the electorate an asshole thing for a candidate to do no matter whether the target is, say, 30 million Republican voters or 65-70 million Democratic ones.
Speaking for myself, I won't argue that it's a nice thing to say, but in terms of how it affects attitudes it is qualitatively different to insult a group of voters who are by definition not voting for you, as opposed to insulting a group who might have thrown some votes your way.
That being said, if you are concerned about candidates for the presidency acting like "assholes"... shall I continue this line of thought, or is it unnecessary?
EDIT: For that matter, we could also consider the things which candidates have done in this election which could be specifically described as "insulting the electorate". <cough> immigrants <cough>
|
On September 10 2016 13:14 LegalLord wrote:
Had the Republican Party been capable of getting its shit together this would be a blowout for them. But instead they're losing to Hillary because they're just that bad.
Both parties are trying their level best to lose. Like, Trump and Clinton are about the worst candidates either party could have put up. Of course, the runners up were Sanders and Ted-Fucking-Cruz, so it's not a season where electability has been valued all that much.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 10 2016 14:43 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 13:14 LegalLord wrote:
Had the Republican Party been capable of getting its shit together this would be a blowout for them. But instead they're losing to Hillary because they're just that bad. Both parties are trying their level best to lose. Like, Trump and Clinton are about the worst candidates either party could have put up. Of course, the runners up were Sanders and Ted-Fucking-Cruz, so it's not a season where electability has been valued all that much.
Hillary cashed in all her favors to get the full support of the Democratic party, basically shutting down any establishment challengers from within the party.
The Republicans were stupid enough to think that anyone wanted another Bush in office and weren't able to promote their favored candidates at all when that proved not to be the case.
|
On September 10 2016 09:29 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I mean exactly what I said; one focused on pragmatism and rigorous analysis, rather than ideology.
i'm not familar enough with yoru examples ot say how apt they are.
How is rigorous analysis opposed to "ideology?" Do you think you are free of ideology?
|
On September 10 2016 14:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 13:21 oBlade wrote:On September 10 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote:People who even contemplate voting for Trump would never vote for Hillary. This election is about driving turnout up. If insults would have any detrimental effect Trump would be polling in the negative numbers. Also she's probably right Was Mitt Romney right? It was overly simplistic but yes, he was. It was his conclusion that was wrong. He concluded half the country are net beneficiaries of taxes because they're lazy and that's not the problem, although I'm sure some are. But the cause is rampant wealth inequality, the reason a few people pay most the taxes and half the people pay none is because half the people have no money and with percentage taxes and crazy inequality that's just the result you'll get.
Romney imagined 1 years tax returns as lifetime income. He put the 47% in a class, when in fact they included students, the temporarily unemployed, retirees, and homemakers. By doing so, he made those who had less income than him into a class, not as a station in life. A catastrophic mistake.
Hillary called the "lock her up" chanters, the guys yelling "build the wall", and the 88-14ers a basket of deplorables. They are as a simple matter of fact, and she will lose the election if she backs off now. She must stand by her characterization as this is precisely what this election is about. The Trumpkin alt-right must be called out and defeated. Should she back down, they could win over her fallen integrity.
|
As much as I agree with what she said I was a bit surprised Hillary made that comment and I was wondering if she intended it to become public.
|
On September 10 2016 22:36 Doodsmack wrote:
As much as I agree with what she said I was a bit surprised Hillary made that comment and I was wondering if she intended it to become public.
The full quote is much better.
"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."
But that middle part is going to get a lot of play. I don't know if it will change any minds, however.
|
On September 10 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 09:29 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I mean exactly what I said; one focused on pragmatism and rigorous analysis, rather than ideology.
i'm not familar enough with yoru examples ot say how apt they are. How is rigorous analysis opposed to "ideology?" Do you think you are free of ideology?
ideology, by definition, is about a belief system, rather than about what really works. and staunch ideologues are an observable problem.
I have some ideology; but i'm quite willing to temper much of it with pragmatism. we need more pragmatism in gov't at the moment. and more rigor.
|
On September 10 2016 14:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 13:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 10 2016 13:21 oBlade wrote:On September 10 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote:People who even contemplate voting for Trump would never vote for Hillary. This election is about driving turnout up. If insults would have any detrimental effect Trump would be polling in the negative numbers. Also she's probably right Was Mitt Romney right? No, because his 47% was an absolutely asinine statistic that included a substantial number of Republican voters that would, in fact, vote for him. I believe it included everyone on Social Security, for example, who are the Republican's greatest demographic asset. There's a significant difference between saying half the country will never vote for you because they get free money and saying half of the people voting for your opponent are deplorable. It's actually a massive difference-so massive I'm shocked you don't understand it. You've done little to open my eyes because I find insulting the electorate an asshole thing for a candidate to do no matter whether the target is, say, 30 million Republican voters or 65-70 million Democratic ones.
I mean, of course it was a stupid thing to say that was poorly thought out and not very kind. But I was partly pointing out Mitt Romney was straight up wrong about how he interpreted his statistic (since you asked), and until we get to the real polls we won't really get to find out if Clinton was straight up wrong about hers-I think it's probably less than about half though, more like 10-25%. Maybe if we differentiate "Trump supporters" from "Trump voters" the numbers are more like Clinton's but those are word games.
Also, here's the second part of Clinton's quote about Trump supporters:
That other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change.
|
In what world was this basket of deplorables comment a good idea? This is her 47%. What a complete idiot.
|
Who knows, voters may agree that the alt right is deplorable.
"We can't take anyone or any place for granted and therefore I am asking you to volunteer for a phone bank or a canvass...At the very least, if you know anybody who's even thinking of voting for Trump, stage an intervention. That may be one conversion therapy I endorse. Just remember: friends don't let friends vote for Trump."
#FriendsDon'tLetFriendsVoteForTrump
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 10 2016 23:39 Mohdoo wrote:
In what world was this basket of deplorables comment a good idea? This is her 47%. What a complete idiot.
It could be. It was a pretty stupid comment that will piss people off if they don't like Hillary, and will be used against her in the debates. Romney is still known as the "47 percent" candidate and even if Hillary doesn't lose this would be rock solid ammunition for the Republicans in 2020.
|
If the Democrats can't field someone better than Hillary in 2020 given the number of promising people they showed at the convention, they probably deserve it at that point.
|
It's interesting in that if "47%" hadn't been a thing, I'm not sure this comment would get the play it does and will.
Because at least in theory this comment doesn't really alienate anyone for being a Trump supporter-they can just say "oh I'm in the other half." Or,if their friends/loved ones are, "they're in the other half." Unlike 47%, where there was a clear condition (people who don't pay taxes) which was being insulted/said to be not someone worth caring about.
But theory isn't reality, and because of the optics of 47%, the game for comments like this is very different than it would be.
|
On September 11 2016 00:07 TheYango wrote:
If the Democrats can't field someone better than Hillary in 2020 given the number of promising people they showed at the convention, they probably deserve it at that point.
well; if hillary wins, as is likely, it's very rare for an incumbent president to not get the nomination if they're seeking it. the incumbency advantage is pretty big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
