|
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 13 2016 09:45 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if one had a (hypothetical for the sake of argument) completely unbiased report, what % of people observing it would claim it is biased.
it's like saying if one had a hypothetical square circle. remember when i was talking about facticity several weeks ago?
|
On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water.
No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 13 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water. No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off.
It would be a big win to define a movement nobody knows or cares about?
|
I'm not so sure that no one knows or cares about it. People are aware that there are lunatic fringes. It's basically associating Trump with right wing extremists, which is not a hard connection to make. They have opinions in common.
|
On September 13 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water. No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off. It would be a big win to define a movement nobody knows or cares about?
Considering the alt-right is more or less in charge of the House (Freedom Caucus) and has their presidential candidate + the runner up (Trump/Cruz) I would say they are pretty cared about.
|
On September 13 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water. No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off.
As LegalLord points out, why does it matter? Let's just be clear on what Clinton's trying to do: she wants people to think that Trump is a racist. Attacking the alt right is a very unnecessarily indirect route to take to get there. She'd be better off going right at him rather trying to create a strawman that is only going to confuse and offend voters.
|
On September 14 2016 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On September 13 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water. No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off. It would be a big win to define a movement nobody knows or cares about? Considering the alt-right is more or less in charge of the House (Freedom Caucus) and has their presidential candidate + the runner up (Trump/Cruz) I would say they are pretty cared about.
Good luck creating a credible connection between the Freedom Caucus and the truly racist elements of the alt right. And we're right back to the root problem: the alt right defies definition because it is so big and can mean so many different things.
|
The alt right encompasses more than just racism and Hillary is connecting him to all the conspiracies and whatnot too. Trump shares opinions with these people. Thus Hillary runs TV ads of KKK leaders stating "what he believes in, we believe in".
|
On September 14 2016 00:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water. No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off. As LegalLord points out, why does it matter? Let's just be clear on what Clinton's trying to do: she wants people to think that Trump is a racist. Attacking the alt right is a very unnecessarily indirect route to take to get there. She'd be better off going right at him rather trying to create a strawman that is only going to confuse and offend voters.
I think she's trying to poison a big part of Trump's movement in hopes of turning people off by sharing their company. Not to say I think it defines Trump, but the stuff with Duke certainly gives the Clinton camp some non-zero amount of justification. If it can somehow become an accepted fact that the alt-right is what the Clinton campaign says it is, Breitbart suddenly becomes pretty toxic. I think of this as a way of eroding non-alt-right people from voting for Trump. I'm not so sure going after Pepe (still can't believe it) is the best way to do it, but they seem to be going all-in.
|
at the congressional level, paul ryan may be in for an interesting ride next year. seems like a lot of GOP "loyalists" who usually do what they're asked are at-risk while the freedom caucus is likely to survive more or less intact.
|
On September 13 2016 23:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump's campaign on Tuesday is rolling out policy proposals aimed at lowering the cost of childcare, but already is facing resistance from Democrats who pointed to his business history and statements about women.
Trump will unveil the full extent of his plans at an event later in the evening in Aston, Pennsylvania, accompanied by his eldest daughter, Ivanka, who is said to have come up with part of the plan. The proposal includes six weeks of paid maternity leave that an aide said would be paid for by eliminating unemployment insurance fraud.
Democrats and supporters of Hillary Clinton mocked the first reported details of Trump's plan on Twitter.
"If @realDonaldTrump actually believed in paid leave he'd have offered it to all his workers. Has he?" tweeted Neera Tanden, a Clinton supporter and president of the Center for American Progress.
Clinton spokesman Jesse Lehrich, sharing screenshots of negative headlines pertaining to Trump's relationship with women, remarked, "somehow having trouble believing Trump will be a champion for working mothers..."
Responding to a point of clarification about the details of the maternity leave proposal from a CNN reporter, Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson tweeted, "hmm."
Trump boasted of a child-care program for his employees earlier in the campaign in Iowa, but The Associated Press reported in August that the two services mentioned by the Republican nominee are for the children of his hotel and golf club guests.
The plan, according to a memo reported on by The Washington Post, "will rewrite the tax code to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes child-care expenses for up to four children and elderly dependents."
The Post reported that the deduction would be capped at the "average cost of care" in each state and not available to individuals making more than $250,000, or couples making more than $500,000. Trump's proposal will also include additional spending rebates through the Earned Income Tax Credit, expanding opportunities for stay-at-home parents to deduct their expenses and revising federal savings accounts so that people can set aside money specifically for child development and education. Source
If that's the best response that Democrats can come up with, then Trump is going to eat their lunch on this issue.
|
Wolf Blitzer: Is David Duke a deplorable person?
Mike Pence: I'm not in the business of name-calling, Wolf.
- Mike Pence, distinguishing himself from his running mate, 9/12/16
|
On September 14 2016 00:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On September 13 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On September 13 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water. No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off. It would be a big win to define a movement nobody knows or cares about? Considering the alt-right is more or less in charge of the House (Freedom Caucus) and has their presidential candidate + the runner up (Trump/Cruz) I would say they are pretty cared about. Good luck creating a credible connection between the Freedom Caucus and the truly racist elements of the alt right. And we're right back to the root problem: the alt right defies definition because it is so big and can mean so many different things.
Considering their insistence of defunding PP I would certainly connect the Freedom Caucus to misogynists tho.
Clinton was trying to define the alt-right as racists / bigots / misogynists. Someone doesn't have to be all 3 to be 'deplorable'
|
On September 14 2016 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2016 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On September 13 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On September 13 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water. No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off. It would be a big win to define a movement nobody knows or cares about? Considering the alt-right is more or less in charge of the House (Freedom Caucus) and has their presidential candidate + the runner up (Trump/Cruz) I would say they are pretty cared about. Good luck creating a credible connection between the Freedom Caucus and the truly racist elements of the alt right. And we're right back to the root problem: the alt right defies definition because it is so big and can mean so many different things. Considering their insistence of defunding PP I would certainly connect the Freedom Caucus to misogynists tho. Clinton was trying to define the alt-right as racists / bigots / misogynists. Someone doesn't have to be all 3 to be 'deplorable'
I can agree to this in concept, but you do see the inherent sloppiness in the attempt, right? Throwing a whole bunch of shit at the wall and hoping some of it sticks is not a winning message.
|
On September 14 2016 00:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 00:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2016 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On September 13 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On September 13 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water. No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off. It would be a big win to define a movement nobody knows or cares about? Considering the alt-right is more or less in charge of the House (Freedom Caucus) and has their presidential candidate + the runner up (Trump/Cruz) I would say they are pretty cared about. Good luck creating a credible connection between the Freedom Caucus and the truly racist elements of the alt right. And we're right back to the root problem: the alt right defies definition because it is so big and can mean so many different things. Considering their insistence of defunding PP I would certainly connect the Freedom Caucus to misogynists tho. Clinton was trying to define the alt-right as racists / bigots / misogynists. Someone doesn't have to be all 3 to be 'deplorable' I can agree to this in concept, but you do see the inherent sloppiness in the attempt, right? Throwing a whole bunch of shit at the wall and hoping some of it sticks is not a winning message.
Why is it sloppy to call them out together when those groups of people have combined themselves in an attempt to influence policy?
|
On September 13 2016 23:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 09:45 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if one had a (hypothetical for the sake of argument) completely unbiased report, what % of people observing it would claim it is biased. it's like saying if one had a hypothetical square circle. remember when i was talking about facticity several weeks ago?
I do not remember that discussion; also it is not an apt comparison, as they are not definitionally incompatible.
|
On September 14 2016 00:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2016 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 00:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2016 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On September 13 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On September 13 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 13 2016 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say. Yes, these are the problems with Hillary attacking the alt right. No one knows what the alt right is, so at best people will be confused when Hillary goes after the alt right, and, at worst, people will assume that she's accusing them personally of being racists, which puts her right back into the "basket of deplorables" hot water. No one knows what the alt-right is, so the Clinton campaign is trying to define it. If they can manage to stigmatize the alt-right, that would be a huge win for democrats. It's all a matter of pulling that off. It would be a big win to define a movement nobody knows or cares about? Considering the alt-right is more or less in charge of the House (Freedom Caucus) and has their presidential candidate + the runner up (Trump/Cruz) I would say they are pretty cared about. Good luck creating a credible connection between the Freedom Caucus and the truly racist elements of the alt right. And we're right back to the root problem: the alt right defies definition because it is so big and can mean so many different things. Considering their insistence of defunding PP I would certainly connect the Freedom Caucus to misogynists tho. Clinton was trying to define the alt-right as racists / bigots / misogynists. Someone doesn't have to be all 3 to be 'deplorable' I can agree to this in concept, but you do see the inherent sloppiness in the attempt, right? Throwing a whole bunch of shit at the wall and hoping some of it sticks is not a winning message. Why is it sloppy to call them out together when those groups of people have combined themselves in an attempt to influence policy?
Similar situation with the green party. I agree with them 100% on the environment and hugely differ from democrats. However, moratoriums on an enormous amount of food is extremist nonsense. The environment is not an issue important enough to me to share a bed with the kind of people who don't see the issue with proposing a moratorium on GMOs. Despite the environment being my #2 or #3 most important issue, I am voting for a party I hugely disagree with on that issue.
The deplorable thing makes people ask themselves if they are comfortable sharing a bed with Duke.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The deplorable thing also makes people ask themselves if they want to associate with a candidate who directly insults 25% of the electorate in a single comment.
+ Show Spoiler +And of course the reflexive retort to that is "but Trump does the same!" Which gets into how shallow Clinton's argument in her favor really is.
|
"We've already polled inside the Trump voters, and we know that we're going to carry 75 to 80 percent of those who are going to vote for Trump."
- David Duke, 8/5/16
|
On September 14 2016 00:38 LegalLord wrote:The deplorable thing also makes people ask themselves if they want to associate with a candidate who directly insults 25% of the electorate in a single comment. + Show Spoiler +And of course the reflexive retort to that is "but Trump does the same!" Which gets into how shallow Clinton's argument in her favor really is.
Personally, I think much more than 25% of our population are deplorable. I would be massively uncomfortable with 25% of our population entering into my family. In my eyes, that means I find them to be unacceptable people. People aren't likely aware of it, but I do think that in practice, people would have a strong aversion to more than 25% of the US population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
