| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Clinton insults millions of Americans, she is elitist and doesn't respect the voters. We will see if the comment sticks, but I'm not sure its the Romney 47% comment. He was already in deep shit for the "binders full of women" and other brain dead comments. Clinton can discuss this comment by saying she wants to work with the other half of Trumps supporters who are not terrible people. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: 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. By that logic you could interpret Romney's comment as, "oh I'm in the other 6%." No. It's the distortion, real or perceived, of their concerns that makes that comment so bad to voters. Also the dismissal of a fraction of the population as worthless, a really shitty thing to say as a presidential candidate. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On September 10 2016 22:53 zlefin wrote: 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. I'm not an Igne fan by any stretch--but what you see as "ideological thinking" is the other guy's "pragmatic thinking" and your idea of "pragmatic thinking" is the other guy's idea of "ideological thinking" For the most part, politics happens because there is no consensus on what "pragmatism" actually means in practice. Your belief that you somehow have this objective way of thinking that is more correct than the other guy's way of thinking is the whole reason why the American political system is the way it is today--too many people who accuse the other guy of being too idea driven and not pragmatic enough--specifically because they can't agree as to what a pragmatic solution is. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote: By that logic you could interpret Romney's comment as, "oh I'm in the other 6%." No. It's the distortion, real or perceived, of their concerns that makes that comment so bad to voters. Also the dismissal of a fraction of the population as worthless, a really shitty thing to say as a presidential candidate. Which Trump does all the time. Except he says it about Muslims and Hispanics. That they are poor, criminals or "can't assimilate. And then he just explains it away. The test of this comment will be if undecided voters share Clinton's view of Trump's supporters. Because polling has shown that people are uneasy about the tenor of this rallies. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote: By that logic you could interpret Romney's comment as, "oh I'm in the other 6%." No. It's the distortion, real or perceived, of their concerns that makes that comment so bad to voters. Also the dismissal of a fraction of the population as worthless, a really shitty thing to say as a presidential candidate. Huh? I don't get what you mean as interpreting Romney's comment. There was a hard brightline of "if you don't pay taxes." There is no way to not pay taxes and construe Romney's comment as not referring to you-or your elderly father/grandfather/mother who doesn't pay taxes. Regardless whoever decided to put "half" rather than "there are two kinds of Trump supporters" should be raked over hot coals. It's fine to attack the alt-right, and her speech that did that worked, but trying to assign proportions is stupid and invites these comparisons. (especially with the bitter irony of the rest of her comments directly talking about addressing the concerns of the second "half" of people down on their luck not getting ANY play anywhere because they threw in the "half") | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
What a blunder and mistake,she is so far away from the street. Maybe there is some hope left for trump still. Nah probably not, a last week media offensive like we saw right after the conventions will seal the deal for Clinton. Lolamericanpolitics | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:18 Plansix wrote: Which Trump does all the time. Except he says it about Muslims and Hispanics. That they are poor, criminals or "can't assimilate. And then he just explains it away. The test of this comment will be if undecided voters share Clinton's view of Trump's supporters. Because polling has shown that people are uneasy about the tenor of this rallies. The real test of this comment is a race to the bottom: who can piss of the most/least number of voters by November? This is going to matter after the election for sure. The losing party won't let people forget. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:19 TheTenthDoc wrote: Huh? I don't get what you mean as interpreting Romney's comment. There was a hard brightline of "if you don't pay taxes." There is no way to not pay taxes and construe Romney's comment as not referring to you-or your elderly father/grandfather/mother who doesn't pay taxes. Regardless whoever decided to put "half" rather than "there are two kinds of Trump supporters" should be raked over hot coals. It's fine to attack the alt-right, and her speech that did that worked, but trying to assign proportions is stupid and invites these comparisons. (especially with the bitter irony of the rest of her comments directly talking about addressing the concerns of the second "half" of people down on their luck not getting ANY play anywhere because they threw in the "half") His comments were most about "personal responsibility" and how the 47% don't have any. And people don't think the way you say they do. Say, for example, that I said, "half of all Mexicans are rapists, murderers, and leeches on society. The other half are looking for a better life than in Mexico." How do you think that comment will play with Hispanics? People would rightfully so interpret that comment not as "oh I'm in the other half" but as "what an ignorant twat." And that's how Hillary should be interpreted as well. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:14 TMagpie wrote: I'm not an Igne fan by any stretch--but what you see as "ideological thinking" is the other guy's "pragmatic thinking" and your idea of "pragmatic thinking" is the other guy's idea of "ideological thinking" For the most part, politics happens because there is no consensus on what "pragmatism" actually means in practice. Your belief that you somehow have this objective way of thinking that is more correct than the other guy's way of thinking is the whole reason why the American political system is the way it is today--too many people who accuse the other guy of being too idea driven and not pragmatic enough--specifically because they can't agree as to what a pragmatic solution is. no, it's really not. there really is a difference between pragmatism and ideological thinking. yes, some people do use it that way, and they're just wrong. It really is quite possible to be considerably more objective than a fair number of the current politicians are. the decreased willingness to compromise is a mark of higher levels of ideologues compared to pragmatists. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:26 LegalLord wrote: His comments were most about "personal responsibility" and how the 47% don't have any. And people don't think the way you say they do. Say, for example, that I said, "half of all Mexicans are rapists, murderers, and leeches on society. The other half are looking for a better life than in Mexico." How do you think that comment will play with Hispanics? People would rightfully so interpret that comment not as "oh I'm in the other half" but as "what an ignorant twat." And that's how Hillary should be interpreted as well. Yes. The 47% who don't pay taxes don't have any personal responsibility and won't vote for him no matter what. Not 47% of those who don't pay taxes have no personal responsibility. I still have no idea how anyone who doesn't pay taxes can interpret that as not applying to them as you said. That's why I think she absolutely shouldn't have said half, because if she had just said two groups people would not react that way-her entire speech excoriating the alt-right was blasting them as awful people and no one batted an eye even as she categorized them as Trump supporters. But I also don't think people would react the same way to this comment if there had never been a 47%. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:26 LegalLord wrote: His comments were most about "personal responsibility" and how the 47% don't have any. And people don't think the way you say they do. Say, for example, that I said, "half of all Mexicans are rapists, murderers, and leeches on society. The other half are looking for a better life than in Mexico." How do you think that comment will play with Hispanics? People would rightfully so interpret that comment not as "oh I'm in the other half" but as "what an ignorant twat." And that's how Hillary should be interpreted as well. Like the "47%", "Hispanics" are both Republicans and Democrats. If the comment had been about Democrats only, there would be little effect. Insulting parts of your own base is not a good way to win elections. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:40 TheTenthDoc wrote: Yes. The 47% who don't pay taxes don't have any personal responsibility and won't vote for him no matter what. Not 47% of those who don't pay taxes have no personal responsibility. I still have no idea how anyone who doesn't pay taxes can interpret that as not applying to them as you said. That's why I think she absolutely shouldn't have said half, because if she had just said two groups people would not react that way-her entire speech excoriating the alt-right was blasting them as awful people and no one batted an eye even as she categorized them as Trump supporters. But I also don't think people would react the same way to this comment if there had never been a 47%. Insulting part of the electorate is in general a pretty shitty idea. Think "New York values" which was not just unpopular with New York, but that was one of the points where Trump got a chance to seem remarkably presidential. No, the issue is with the fact that you are being dismissive of a portion of the electorate. As Obama did with Romney, you can justifiably use that statement to make it appear that your opponent is willing to dismiss a portion of the population just for the hell of it as "just stupid/lazy/irresponsible/crooks/leeches" which is remarkably un-presidential. Obama himself had a much more inclusive rhetoric and that's why he was popular while campaigning. Hillary is very strongly hated by half the country, much more than Obama ever was even in this quite shitty election climate. On September 11 2016 01:01 acker wrote: Like the "47%", "Hispanics" are both Republicans and Democrats. If the comment had been about Democrats only, there would be little effect. Insulting parts of your own base is not a good way to win elections. So if I replaced "Hispanics" with "blacks" and made an equivalent statement, that wouldn't piss off potential voters? | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On September 11 2016 01:04 LegalLord wrote: So if I replaced "Hispanics" with "blacks" and made an equivalent statement, that wouldn't piss off potential voters? That would be an excellent way to reduce the black vote from 10% to 0%, as the Republican party recently showed. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
Former President Bill Clinton stumps for his wife in Orlando, FL. He says that Donald Trump's promise to "Make America Great Again" is a racist codeword. "If you’re a white southerner, you know exactly what it means,” Clinton said. "I'm old enough to remember the good old days," he said. "And they weren't all that good in many ways." "That message -- I'll give you America great again -- "If you’re a white southerner, you know exactly what it means, don't you? It means I’ll give you the economy you had 50 years ago and I’ll move you back up the social totem pole and other people down,” Source (conveniently leaves out some important context) I thought I had heard the old "Make America Great Again" somewhere before... "Make America Great Again" Bill Clinton 1991 announcement speech calls to "Make America Great Again" Source | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
She wasn't talking about 47% of all Americans, and she wasn't classifying them based on their income, and then insulting the least wealthy half. Yeah, THAT was Romney. Rather, she was talking about her more ardent political opposition. She is talking about people that have essentially been calling HER a murderer, rapist, and treasonist for over 2 decades. Also... it's Trump. The Trump campaign complaining about insults is just not going to fly. She even clarified the statement in the very next sentence. "racists, homophobes", etc, etc. So, we're either going to pretend those people AREN'T voting for Trump, or we can just acknowledge that Hillary's statement was, at its absolute worst, a bit hyperbolic. It's not REALLY an insult to call racists deplorable. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On September 11 2016 01:28 Leporello wrote: I don't see any controversy in her comment at all. I also see it as generously close to accurate. She wasn't talking about 47% of all Americans, and she wasn't classifying them based on their income, and then insulting the least wealthy half. Yeah, THAT was Romney. Rather, she was talking about her more ardent political opposition. She is talking about people that have essentially been calling HER a murderer, rapist, and treasonist for over 2 decades. Also... it's Trump. The Trump campaign complaining about insults is just not going to fly. She even clarified the statement in the very next sentence. "racists, homophobes", etc, etc. So, we're either going to pretend those people AREN'T voting for Trump, or we can just acknowledge that Hillary's statement was, at its absolute worst, a bit hyperbolic. It's not REALLY an insult to call racists deplorable. As much as I dislike Trump, I'd put Kissinger much higher on my list of deplorables than Trump supporters. I guess Hillary supporters think a little differently. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Everyone else will see it for the shitty statement that it actually is. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9208 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
