|
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 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.
Which people are those? Have you spoken to any?
|
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.
I feel like the difference, however, is that a very, very significant portion of Trump supporters really are alt-right and/or racist and/or sexist and/or white supremacist and/or otherwise explicitly prejudicial of certain groups of people, using "Down with political correctness!" as a facade to mask the fact that what they're saying isn't just politically incorrect, it's downright bigoted.
On the other hand, what Trump says about basically-every-group-that-isn't-white-and-Christian-and-male is basically false. Trump is lying, while Hillary is telling the truth (although I don't know if it's exactly 50% of Trump's supporters; it might be 40% or whatever).
|
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?
It's sloppy because the attack lacks coherent focus. She's trying to lump all of these voters into her basket of deplorables using terminology that isn't easily understood. And just to be clear, I think it's a bad idea to be going after the voters anyway. She needs to be going after Trump.
|
There are rumors and speculations.
That it wont be long till Hillary gives press conference announcing she drops out,
Wonder what would happen then.
|
On September 14 2016 00:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +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. Which people are those? Have you spoken to any?
Um... yes? Holy fuck, it's not hard to find people who believe in the principle that the president is expected to be the representative of "the 100%" and that directly insulting 25% of the electorate is a terrible idea.
Even Hillary herself recognized this better than her most deluded supporters, given that she gave an apology rather quickly for her stupid comment.
|
On September 14 2016 00:57 pmh wrote:
There are rumors and speculations.
That it wont be long till Hillary gives press conference announcing she drops out,
Wonder what would happen then.
And where have you seen these rumors, pray tell
|
On September 14 2016 00:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:27 Gorsameth wrote: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? It's sloppy because the attack lacks coherent focus. She's trying to lump all of these voters into her basket of deplorables using terminology that isn't easily understood. And just to be clear, I think it's a bad idea to be going after the voters anyway. She needs to be going after Trump.
I agree, it was a terrible idea and she should never have said it.
But I also more or less agree with what she said.
|
Its not a real rumor,just a thought that some people on the internet seem to entertain. It does not seem unlikely to me if it wasn't for the chaos it would create. But what if Hillary drops out 1 year in and caine becomes president,that would be pretty bad for the democratic party as well.
|
On September 14 2016 01:02 pmh wrote:
Its not a real rumor,just a thought that some people on the internet seem to entertain. It does not seem unlikely to me if it wasn't for the chaos it would create. But what if Hillary drops out 1 year in and caine becomes president,that would be pretty bad for the democratic party as well.
No, it wouldn't.
|
I'll also briefly entertain the idea of Clinton dropping out, Kaine replacing her at the top of the ticket and winning by a landslide. An absolutely terrible, low energy, deplorable landslide.
|
A government oversight report released Wednesday by Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake offers new details about how the Department of Defense paid professional sports teams and leagues for patriotic displays honoring American soldiers.
The report expands on one that became public last May and resulted in changes to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016, prohibiting the expenditures and calling on leagues and teams to donate the money to organizations that support the military, veterans and their families.
“What we take issue with,” wrote Flake, who, like McCain, is a Republican from Arizona, “is the average fan thinking teams are doing this on behalf of the military.”
NASCAR was the biggest recipient, getting $1,560,000 for fiscal year 2015. Included were personal appearances by Aric Almirola and Richard Petty, as well as 20 Richard Petty Driving Experience ride-alongs. The expenditures, according to the DOD, were “integral to its recruiting efforts.” A NASCAR official who requested anonymity told the Post in an email: “NASCAR has a long-standing history of honoring America’s military. Each year, we recognize active duty service members and veterans at races around the country. NASCAR has not been paid by the military and would never accept military funds to recognize those who have served.”
From the report’s introduction:
“At the time [parts of the report surfaced], both the DOD and the NFL downplayed our assessment, characterizing it as an unfounded and inaccurate portrayal of the contracts, the report states. A National Guard spokesman, in particular, assured American taxpayers that the contracts were for legitimate advertising activities that support recruiting efforts. And, the NFL said our legislation ‘paint[ed] a completely distorted picture of the relationship between NFL teams and our military.’
“For the past several months, we have continued to work with DOD to fully understand the nature and extent of these contracts. In all, the military services reported $53 million in spending on marketing and advertising contracts with sports teams between 2012 and 2015. More than $10 million of that total was paid to teams in the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), National Hockey League (NHL) and Major League Soccer (MLS).
“Over the course of the effort, we discovered the startling fact that DOD cannot accurately account for how many contracts it has awarded or how much has been spent; its official response to our request only accounted for 62 percent of its 122 contracts with the major league teams that we were able to uncover and 70 percent of the more than $10 million it actually spent on these contracts. And, although DOD has indicated the purpose of these contracts is to support recruiting, the Department doesn’t uniformly measure how and whether the activities under contract are actually contributing to recruiting.”
The 145-page report cites contributions to 18 NFL teams, 10 MLB teams, eight NBA teams, six NHL teams, eight soccer teams, as well as NASCAR, Iron Dog and Indiana University Purdue University.
The Atlanta Falcons, for instance, were the top recipients, getting $879,000 over four years. Over the same period, for instance, the New England Patriots received $700,000 and the Buffalo Bills $650,000.
Report: At least 50 teams were paid by Department of Defense for patriotic displays
|
On September 14 2016 01:02 pmh wrote:
Its not a real rumor,just a thought that some people on the internet seem to entertain. It does not seem unlikely to me if it wasn't for the chaos it would create. But what if Hillary drops out 1 year in and caine becomes president,that would be pretty bad for the democratic party as well.
Why would it? Kaine's biggest problem was name recognition. He has that now as Hillary's VP.
Hillary will not drop out. But even if she did it would probably create a boost for the Democrats because now their candidate is not Hillary while still holding to their political ideals.
|
I’ll freely admit that Clinton botched the talk about the terrible sections Trump supporters and should never have used “half” like that is a measureable amount. That was a blunder and it is going to cost her in messaging going forward.
However, I think one aspect we are neglecting to discuss is how minority demographics that back the Democrats view the “alt right” and the new found prominence of types like David Duke. Our view of these groups is very different from how blacks and Hispanics see them and not discussing these aspects of Trumps campaign would not sit well with those groups. Clinton cannot ignore these aspects of Trumps supporters and then make the argument to blacks and Hispanics that she is taking their concerns seriously.
That being said, she botched is recently by relying on over simplified talking points, rather than data and recent quotes from those people. And that has limited her ability to talk about it without having to be questioned on the “baskets” comment.
|
On September 14 2016 00:57 pmh wrote:
There are rumors and speculations.
That it wont be long till Hillary gives press conference announcing she drops out,
Wonder what would happen then.
I bet *many people* say that.
But will the press conference be done by her? Or by her body double, since she died last sunday?
|
On September 14 2016 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 01:02 pmh wrote:
Its not a real rumor,just a thought that some people on the internet seem to entertain. It does not seem unlikely to me if it wasn't for the chaos it would create. But what if Hillary drops out 1 year in and caine becomes president,that would be pretty bad for the democratic party as well. Why would it? Kaine's biggest problem was name recognition. He has that now as Hillary's VP. Hillary will not drop out. But even if she did it would probably create a boost for the Democrats because now their candidate is not Hillary while still holding to their political ideals.
Yeah, I feel like Clinton dropping out would make this the easiest election win in a very long time.
|
On September 14 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
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
"Donald Trump and I have repeatedly denounced David Duke and we've said that we don't want his support and we don't want the support of people who think like David Duke."
+ Show Spoiler +
CNN would have loved a clip of Pence calling someone 'deplorable' to piece together some kind of tu quoque argument excusing Hillary.
|
I don't think saying half was necessarily a mistake. It has people trying to actively figure out just how many of his supporters really are deplorable. No one is even attempting to say that they aren't a significant portion.
|
I still find it hilarious that the overall message of the chunk of the speech the "deplorables" comment comes from is that half of Trump supporters are people whose complaints need to listened to and need to be cared about in policy and who Trump will not be able to help, yet that's completely lost in all discussion. Where's my context, Trump campaign????
|
I don't know why she even had to try to quantify it. Just say (in more political terms) that 100 percent of the racist, sexist, homophobic scum in this country support Donald Trump and they are excited by his candidacy like never before.
All of which is true.
|
On September 14 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 01:02 pmh wrote:
Its not a real rumor,just a thought that some people on the internet seem to entertain. It does not seem unlikely to me if it wasn't for the chaos it would create. But what if Hillary drops out 1 year in and caine becomes president,that would be pretty bad for the democratic party as well. Why would it? Kaine's biggest problem was name recognition. He has that now as Hillary's VP. Hillary will not drop out. But even if she did it would probably create a boost for the Democrats because now their candidate is not Hillary while still holding to their political ideals. Yeah, I feel like Clinton dropping out would make this the easiest election win in a very long time.
Sanders supporters would be absolutely incensed if it were given to kaine. Some who were voting for Clinton are doing so because she did actually win the primary. Kaine did not - it would be entirely undemocratic to have him run. That whole nightmare is probably a contributor to keeping the DNC from actively truly considering it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
