|
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 17 2016 10:31 Plansix wrote:
They are really not that big of a deal, at all. I live in one of the most liberal sections of the country, filled with colleges. They are not a problem. They are only a problem if someone needs to be while a full asshole all the time and gets really offended when people tell them to stop.
Yep, I don't think you understand the issue at all Plansix.
The whole point is that this population, who thinks much like you (and hence why I disagree with most things you say... A similar mentality that you are portraying is the one I want to stay away from the white house, law, and congress), will become a sizeable population who will decide to outcome of elections and decide what laws will become commonplace.
This is how it will affect right-wing people, not by some stupid girl telling another guy to take his Donald Trump hat off. The issue is that communicating that is very difficult when I don't have the full brain power or attention of someone, because they'll dismiss it before they give it any thought.
|
On September 17 2016 10:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:04 zlefin wrote:On September 17 2016 10:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote:
Trump seems more about bringing disunity to the USA than unity. but you can want him to do whatever you like, as he surely ain't gonna deliver. That's not what I see (I am someone who has seen every one of his speeches on the internet). Obviously I'm going to be biased, but I see a powerful message of unity in his speeches, what you see in the little snippets in media, obviously will be taken out of context, much like Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorable. In my eyes, it's a complete shame of Hillary for being a useless politician that can't talk about anything good about herself, 95-99% of her campaign has become shitting on Trump... Like Obama said, don't we have something more meaningful to talk about? just because he talks about unity sometimes (which is good) doesn't mean he's actually producing it. He, like many politicians, says a whole lot of stuff, so people can pick and choose what they like. He says unity stuff sometime, but some very different stuff at other times. On the whole I'd say the effect is more one of division than unity. I've definitely got the impression of a decrease in unity as a result of him. It is dumb of Hillary to try shitting on trump, insulting people isn't what hillary is good; she's a policy wonk, sure it's terribly boring, but it's still a better play than what she's doing. Yes, you're right, especially about saying the whole lot of stuff so people can choose what they like. To me, as someone white who is surrounded by a lot of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people.. Trump seems like a fairly easy person to get behind. That's because these people assimilate fairly well, and are all about what you are able to do. There aren't these special kinds of bonds, they value you as a person based on what you can do. To me, I'd think a lot of Mexicans are the same as well. There was a couple polls that showed that Trump is 35% with English speaking hispanics and only 10% with the bilingual/spanish speaking ones. I don't have it in front of me, so pardon me if the numbers are a tad off, but I think this is a fairly good indication that the people who get into the groove of American culture can get to like Trump. 35% isn't so bad given that 15%~ are undecided/voting for other people... And not only that, they have so much pressure from other hispanics to not like him, personally I think people can get behind liking Trump quite easily. There aren't very many Black people where I live, so I can't really comment on how well he'd be able to get along with Black people, it is a bit of a different culture. I think the biggest thing is if you keep telling yourself that Trump is some awful person, you'll always nitpick bad things, and you'll never like him.
I think Trump has said and done enough terrible things that it's easy to find him awful and unfit for the presidency. No need to pick nits when there are much larger things to pick at  (indicator of comedy and snideness)
Not sure what your point was about the number of muslims who favor sharia law; that doesn't really affect the left, which tends to be less religious. And there's plenty of americans who push for more biblically based law.
as to the video you posted; not much of interest there. just already known stuff. What it is, is there's crazy people on each(all) side pushing narratives that are unsound. Which is just typical.
|
On September 17 2016 10:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:31 Plansix wrote:
They are really not that big of a deal, at all. I live in one of the most liberal sections of the country, filled with colleges. They are not a problem. They are only a problem if someone needs to be while a full asshole all the time and gets really offended when people tell them to stop. Yep, I don't think you understand the issue at all Plansix. The whole point is that this population, who thinks much like you (and hence why I disagree with most things you say... A similar mentality that you are portraying is the one I want to stay away from the white house, law, and congress), will become a sizeable population who will decide to outcome of elections and decide what laws will become commonplace. This is how it will affect right-wing people, not by some stupid girl telling another guy to take his Donald Trump hat off. The issue is that communicating that is very difficult when I don't have the full brain power or attention of someone, because they'll dismiss it before they give it any thought.
No, I get it. I was a teenager in the 90s when the the first round of anti PC movement. It's not a problem, unless you're an asshole.
|
On September 17 2016 10:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 09:25 Dan HH wrote:On September 17 2016 08:39 oBlade wrote:On September 17 2016 07:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 17 2016 07:38 TheYango wrote:On September 17 2016 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2016 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
There's really no way for Trump to remove his birther stain and throw it on Clinton. Perpetuating the birther topic will only hurt him. So far he has parlayed his birther stain into a free press conference and unflattering inquiries into Hillary. How is this hurting him? Yeah I'm not seeing how this hurts Trump at all. Anyone who's bothered by his position on the birther stuff already made up their mind long ago. This just gets him a lot of free press coverage and makes a couple more of the people who already distrust Hillary distrust her slightly more. I think it's stupid, but the media all kind of just played into Trump's hands on this one. I'd give oBlade as Exhibit A here, if an ardent Trump follower was unaware of his position on the birther stuff I'm not sure everyone already knew about it and made up their mind The claim is I didn't know Trump was a prominent birther...? You've established you didn't know that he claimed the birth certificate was fake for all these years after 2011 (which was until today 'his position on the birther stuff'). And his claims that the birth certificate was fake plus his insinuantions that people were killed to keep this a secret are far more damning of his conspiratard tendencies than his pre-2011 birtherism which everyone knows of. Most people follow Trump and news of him far less than you and many of them will also not know of this since it was never huge news since the long form release. That's the basis of why I disagree with Yango that this can't hurt him at all. I don't commit his tweets to memory but some of it rings a bell. What I know his that he has a history of talking about Obama's past, and the significance of that didn't change between 2011 and 2014. Same birtherism. Now, you seem to be saying that something that was a big deal at the time, him giving a bunch of speeches and going on TV shows asking about records and stoking suspicion, is now less of an issue than him desperately clinging to it later with some tweets and the charity reward for Obama's college applications that were certainly never archived. "Birther still sporadically birtherizing" wasn't news at the time for a reason.He has consciously eschewed this business for his candidacy. Let's wait for the polls to see how big the group of people is that knew all about Trump's birtherism but won't stand for, well, whatever you're talking about (if anyone is even there to share old tweets at them).
Yes, and those reasons were Obama putting it to bed by releasing his birth certificate and the birther being a random celebrity rather than a presidential nominee. The change in the latter being why he now had to abandon it to not have it pop up in the debates.
If you think there is no significant difference between saying 'i don't believe Obama was born in the US' and 'i believe Obama faked his birth certificate and killed a doctor to hide it' that explains a lot, but I don't share your view.
As for polls, that's a laughable proposition for testing the effect of a single event, even if I had claimed that this would cause a significant downfall for Trump which I didn't. We can't even tell how much of the most recent Clinton fall was caused by the deplorables speech and how much by the health issues and lying about it.
|
On September 17 2016 10:49 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 10:04 zlefin wrote:On September 17 2016 10:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote:
Trump seems more about bringing disunity to the USA than unity. but you can want him to do whatever you like, as he surely ain't gonna deliver. That's not what I see (I am someone who has seen every one of his speeches on the internet). Obviously I'm going to be biased, but I see a powerful message of unity in his speeches, what you see in the little snippets in media, obviously will be taken out of context, much like Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorable. In my eyes, it's a complete shame of Hillary for being a useless politician that can't talk about anything good about herself, 95-99% of her campaign has become shitting on Trump... Like Obama said, don't we have something more meaningful to talk about? just because he talks about unity sometimes (which is good) doesn't mean he's actually producing it. He, like many politicians, says a whole lot of stuff, so people can pick and choose what they like. He says unity stuff sometime, but some very different stuff at other times. On the whole I'd say the effect is more one of division than unity. I've definitely got the impression of a decrease in unity as a result of him. It is dumb of Hillary to try shitting on trump, insulting people isn't what hillary is good; she's a policy wonk, sure it's terribly boring, but it's still a better play than what she's doing. Yes, you're right, especially about saying the whole lot of stuff so people can choose what they like. To me, as someone white who is surrounded by a lot of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people.. Trump seems like a fairly easy person to get behind. That's because these people assimilate fairly well, and are all about what you are able to do. There aren't these special kinds of bonds, they value you as a person based on what you can do. To me, I'd think a lot of Mexicans are the same as well. There was a couple polls that showed that Trump is 35% with English speaking hispanics and only 10% with the bilingual/spanish speaking ones. I don't have it in front of me, so pardon me if the numbers are a tad off, but I think this is a fairly good indication that the people who get into the groove of American culture can get to like Trump. 35% isn't so bad given that 15%~ are undecided/voting for other people... And not only that, they have so much pressure from other hispanics to not like him, personally I think people can get behind liking Trump quite easily. There aren't very many Black people where I live, so I can't really comment on how well he'd be able to get along with Black people, it is a bit of a different culture. I think the biggest thing is if you keep telling yourself that Trump is some awful person, you'll always nitpick bad things, and you'll never like him. I think Trump has said and done enough terrible things that it's easy to find him awful and unfit for the presidency. No need to pick nits when there are much larger things to pick at (indicator of comedy and snideness)
Yes, that's true, but I would weigh it with a lot of good that he's said too, and that's what gave me better insight on his as a person. You don't get a good representation of his persona only by looking at all the news where he's getting shat on.
On September 17 2016 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2016 10:18 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2016 10:04 radscorpion9 wrote:On September 17 2016 09:47 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote:
The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater. I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down. Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society. We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way. Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement. Either way, using classical rationalism won't lead you to a very meaningful picture of this election. It is disturbing. People now feel, apparently including presidents of student societies, that it is okay to smear all Trump supporters as bigoted racists. Even the wearing of a hat makes someone feel deeply unsafe...its insane. I could never have imagined this happening five years ago. The irony being of course, that their "safe spaces" are completely hypocritical in that they create spaces where you don't feel safe to offer countering views, for fear of being labelled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, or any other word in the extreme left lexicon. Building a wall with Mexico, and suggesting a temporary ban on Muslims because of the dangers posed by terrorism, has been misconstrued as a vision for a pure white America in which minorities are assaulted, jailed, or otherwise removed from the country. And anyone who dares question this narrative is threatened with assault, or actually assaulted. Normally I don't support Trump because of his views on global warming, but these kinds of attacks make me extremely sympathetic for Trump voters. This kind of stuff would actually sway my vote (if I were American), because I would be increasingly worried that society around me is becoming more and more extremized and accepting of propaganda, and that we actually need someone to counter it and stand up to it. Good point. If a casual observer can look at Trump voters sympathetically and see what's called centrism or rationality as extremism, the field is ripe for change. In this election or future elections. The silent white majority can only be openly crapped on for so long before they start to take notice and act like their own special interest group as the minorities do. This is the inevitable, dangerous result of the past couple generations of liberal politics. I'm pretty sure the silent white majority isn't actually a majority, not even among white people. But the terminology is interesting, because rather than accepting that they're a loud minority, which those people can't fathom because they still believe they're the only ones entitled to a democratic opinion, they go with the silent majority narrative This is pretty funny because every minority movement, no matter how radical, has no problem to accept the basic premise that they are indeed small in numbers. Only the white man cannot understand that he might actually be outnumbered. If his voice is not heard it must be the rigged system, or the strong opposition. It can't possibly be the case that nobody cares
Well Trump is 58-32~ with White people, so I don't know what you call an overwhelming majority, but that's fairly sizeable. So clearly there's a big portion of white people who don't like how it's all been handled, but it's tough to do much now as you can't get 100% of white people on your side no matter what.... And since the non-white population is rising, it'll only get tougher to win an election with based on a lot of American values.
American values doesn't mean only White people, but it does mean fairly heavily assimilation. Naturally if people immigrate to the USA for elsewhere, they won't be exactly on board to having policies that require them to assimilate. Trump doesn't dislike other races because of their color, he dislikes a lot of people because they are a burden to the country, and the US let it happen... Up to a point where White people, or simply put, the people that used to live here with their way of life aren't able to make the decisions anymore.
So yes, hispanics that will work, learn English, all for that... Asian people are excellent, they assimilate super well, especially the first generation ones. Trump wants to unify the belief and value system of the United States, as currently unity in the US is extremely difficult, since a redneck in Texas, and an arts student at a university are polar opposites in their thinking. Of course some people are going to lose out, but it's not done on the merit of their skin color, sexual orientation, or sex... It's by the virtues that Donald Trump deems valuable, which I see as loyalty, hard work, accountability, and all the other terms you put on your resume.
|
On September 17 2016 10:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 10:31 Plansix wrote:
They are really not that big of a deal, at all. I live in one of the most liberal sections of the country, filled with colleges. They are not a problem. They are only a problem if someone needs to be while a full asshole all the time and gets really offended when people tell them to stop. Yep, I don't think you understand the issue at all Plansix. The whole point is that this population, who thinks much like you (and hence why I disagree with most things you say... A similar mentality that you are portraying is the one I want to stay away from the white house, law, and congress), will become a sizeable population who will decide to outcome of elections and decide what laws will become commonplace. This is how it will affect right-wing people, not by some stupid girl telling another guy to take his Donald Trump hat off. The issue is that communicating that is very difficult when I don't have the full brain power or attention of someone, because they'll dismiss it before they give it any thought. No, I get it. I was a teenager in the 90s when the the first round of anti PC movement. It's not a problem, unless you're an asshole.
And once again, don't agree = they're assholes, nice.
The reaffirms my position that the social left are not inclusive to many worldviews, and the difficulty of being a Trump supporter in society with strangers is a testament to that (while with your friends is it's a lot easier).
|
On September 17 2016 10:59 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:22 oBlade wrote:On September 17 2016 09:25 Dan HH wrote:On September 17 2016 08:39 oBlade wrote:On September 17 2016 07:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 17 2016 07:38 TheYango wrote:On September 17 2016 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2016 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
There's really no way for Trump to remove his birther stain and throw it on Clinton. Perpetuating the birther topic will only hurt him. So far he has parlayed his birther stain into a free press conference and unflattering inquiries into Hillary. How is this hurting him? Yeah I'm not seeing how this hurts Trump at all. Anyone who's bothered by his position on the birther stuff already made up their mind long ago. This just gets him a lot of free press coverage and makes a couple more of the people who already distrust Hillary distrust her slightly more. I think it's stupid, but the media all kind of just played into Trump's hands on this one. I'd give oBlade as Exhibit A here, if an ardent Trump follower was unaware of his position on the birther stuff I'm not sure everyone already knew about it and made up their mind The claim is I didn't know Trump was a prominent birther...? You've established you didn't know that he claimed the birth certificate was fake for all these years after 2011 (which was until today 'his position on the birther stuff'). And his claims that the birth certificate was fake plus his insinuantions that people were killed to keep this a secret are far more damning of his conspiratard tendencies than his pre-2011 birtherism which everyone knows of. Most people follow Trump and news of him far less than you and many of them will also not know of this since it was never huge news since the long form release. That's the basis of why I disagree with Yango that this can't hurt him at all. I don't commit his tweets to memory but some of it rings a bell. What I know his that he has a history of talking about Obama's past, and the significance of that didn't change between 2011 and 2014. Same birtherism. Now, you seem to be saying that something that was a big deal at the time, him giving a bunch of speeches and going on TV shows asking about records and stoking suspicion, is now less of an issue than him desperately clinging to it later with some tweets and the charity reward for Obama's college applications that were certainly never archived. "Birther still sporadically birtherizing" wasn't news at the time for a reason.He has consciously eschewed this business for his candidacy. Let's wait for the polls to see how big the group of people is that knew all about Trump's birtherism but won't stand for, well, whatever you're talking about (if anyone is even there to share old tweets at them). Yes, and those reasons were Obama putting it to bed by releasing his birth certificate and the birther being a random celebrity rather than a presidential nominee. The change in the latter being why he now had to abandon it to not have it pop up in the debates. If you think there is no significant difference between saying 'i don't believe Obama was born in the US' and 'i believe Obama faked his birth certificate and killed a doctor to hide it' that explains a lot, but I don't share your view. As for polls, that's a laughable proposition for testing the effect of a single event, even if I had claimed that this would cause a significant downfall for Trump which I didn't. We can't even tell how much of the most recent Clinton fall was caused by the deplorables speech and how much by the health issues and lying about it.
You said it would hurt him. We have demonstrable swings of the Judge Curiel comments and so forth hurting his polling.
If anything about this were to hurt his support, it'd be the abandonment from the perspective of people actually committed to birtherism.
|
fiwi -> discontinuing the quote chain cuz it's getting too long. I did weight it with all the other things he's said, and not just snippets of media coverage. When I said disqualifying I fully meant it. Also most of what politicians say is bland political pablum (hillary and trump included) and doesn't mean all that much. But certain things can be very very bad to say, when they have real and serious consequences.
And he gets shat on by the media for doing bad/dumb/funny things. and cuz he's entertaining.
|
Fiwifaki, while I can understand your position, I think you're over-romanticizing the idea of a Trump presidency. While Trump's rhetoric is very appealing to a lot of people, we still have to factor in the very real possibility that he gets to the White House, stops giving a shit, and hands over the reins to Pence, giving us a status-quo Republican presidency for the next four years anyway, rather than any real traction for the anti-PC movement.
For some, this is still preferable to a Hillary presidency anyway, and that's fine. I just think that should be a clearly recognized possibility that Trump could just end up doing none of what he talks big about and we just get 4 years of business-as-usual anyway.
On September 17 2016 10:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:
There was a couple polls that showed that Trump is 35% with English speaking hispanics and only 10% with the bilingual/spanish speaking ones. I don't have it in front of me, so pardon me if the numbers are a tad off, but I think this is a fairly good indication that the people who get into the groove of American culture can get to like Trump.
All that really says to me is that second- and third-generation immigrants are less likely to have immediate relatives that would be directly affected by anti-immigration policy.
|
On September 17 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> discontinuing the quote chain cuz it's getting too long. I did weight it with all the other things he's said, and not just snippets of media coverage. When I said disqualifying I fully meant it. Also most of what politicians say is bland political pablum (hillary and trump included) and doesn't mean all that much. But certain things can be very very bad to say, when they have real and serious consequences.
And he gets shat on by the media for doing bad/dumb/funny things. and cuz he's entertaining.
Fair enough, I agree that Trump has said many awful things. Either way, disqualifying him is a subjective term, as I don't think it's disqualifying, and neither does the law. - either way I would have been much happier if there's a lot he didn't say.
On September 17 2016 11:12 TheYango wrote:
Fiwifaki, while I can understand your position, I think you're over-romanticizing the idea of a Trump presidency. While Trump's rhetoric is very appealing to a lot of people, we still have to factor in the very real possibility that he gets to the White House, stops giving a shit, and hands over the reins to Pence, giving us a status-quo Republican presidency for the next four years anyway, rather than any real traction for the anti-PC movement.
For some, this is still preferable to a Hillary presidency anyway, and that's fine. I just think that should be a clearly recognized possibility that Trump could just end up doing none of what he talks big about and we just get 4 years of business-as-usual anyway.
Hence why I don't dispute the claim that Trump is a high-risk candidate, and nobody knows that to expect. That said, I don't like the current trend, and 4 years with the power that the president has... I think there's limited damage potential.
I mean the Republicans control the House and the Senate... It's not like Obama was able to do that much anyway, so in that case we will get much of what we get now, the Republicans wouldn't get rid of the EPA completely for example.
But a lot of Republican ideas could get passed, and hopefully some of what Trump has been talking about too, and I think that will slow down and even overturn the current social shift in the middle-class urban populations. I don't like using the "What's the worst that could happen?", since I know someone will link that picture of the 100 different things, but let's be real, this isn't a monarchy, there's more people in the decision making process.
Strict immigration process, maybe some discrimination laws in red states, slight hamper to foreign relations (come on, Bush was abysmal and he didn't destroy the US, and he had 8 years), lax environmental laws, and possibly some abortion law reform. And this is coming from me, someone who would never associate themselves with Republicans before this year, and in my eyes, having reasonably Democratic thinking. People thinking this will crumble the US are a bit over the top.
Sure, they aren't insignificant things, but I like Trump's values enough, and I have enough faith in him and his children, that he will do some good work. I see him as fairly centrist, and I don't think the people who despise him now would suffer under his rule. I think the sooner that people come to the realization that the world isn't falling if Trump wins/is winning, the better off we will be.
Lastly, I don't think Trump will act rash like that in the White House... He doesn't have anything to gain, worst case is he will hype something up to the public while his advisors do something a little bit different. Trump isn't stupid enough to get the advice of 100 experts and then throw it out completely when he has literally nothing to gain.
|
I remember in college there was this feminist speaker who came to rile people up by claiming that any form of penetration was rape. I was always really confused by it - what's the end game there?
People got so upset at her and hosted protests. The people protesting were always crazed conservatives, but the ones defending her sounded insane too because it was a frankly indefensible position, but her defenders treated all of her critics as though they were frothing at the mouth lunatics for not understanding and agreeing that all men were rapists. It was one political cause I was glad that I just ignored until she stopped coming around every year. She was a pretty famous feminist speaker in early 2000s, I think, but I can't remember her name.
|
On September 17 2016 11:14 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> discontinuing the quote chain cuz it's getting too long. I did weight it with all the other things he's said, and not just snippets of media coverage. When I said disqualifying I fully meant it. Also most of what politicians say is bland political pablum (hillary and trump included) and doesn't mean all that much. But certain things can be very very bad to say, when they have real and serious consequences.
And he gets shat on by the media for doing bad/dumb/funny things. and cuz he's entertaining. Fair enough, I agree that Trump has said many awful things. Either way, disqualifying him is a subjective term, as I don't think it's disqualifying, and neither does the law. - either way I would have been much happier if there's a lot he didn't say.
certainly it's not disqualifying under the law; as there is no law.
I'm not looking at his rude statements for this btw; but at ones with real policy implications and other ramifications.
|
On September 17 2016 11:05 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 10:59 Dan HH wrote:On September 17 2016 10:22 oBlade wrote:On September 17 2016 09:25 Dan HH wrote:On September 17 2016 08:39 oBlade wrote:On September 17 2016 07:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 17 2016 07:38 TheYango wrote:On September 17 2016 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2016 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
There's really no way for Trump to remove his birther stain and throw it on Clinton. Perpetuating the birther topic will only hurt him. So far he has parlayed his birther stain into a free press conference and unflattering inquiries into Hillary. How is this hurting him? Yeah I'm not seeing how this hurts Trump at all. Anyone who's bothered by his position on the birther stuff already made up their mind long ago. This just gets him a lot of free press coverage and makes a couple more of the people who already distrust Hillary distrust her slightly more. I think it's stupid, but the media all kind of just played into Trump's hands on this one. I'd give oBlade as Exhibit A here, if an ardent Trump follower was unaware of his position on the birther stuff I'm not sure everyone already knew about it and made up their mind The claim is I didn't know Trump was a prominent birther...? You've established you didn't know that he claimed the birth certificate was fake for all these years after 2011 (which was until today 'his position on the birther stuff'). And his claims that the birth certificate was fake plus his insinuantions that people were killed to keep this a secret are far more damning of his conspiratard tendencies than his pre-2011 birtherism which everyone knows of. Most people follow Trump and news of him far less than you and many of them will also not know of this since it was never huge news since the long form release. That's the basis of why I disagree with Yango that this can't hurt him at all. I don't commit his tweets to memory but some of it rings a bell. What I know his that he has a history of talking about Obama's past, and the significance of that didn't change between 2011 and 2014. Same birtherism. Now, you seem to be saying that something that was a big deal at the time, him giving a bunch of speeches and going on TV shows asking about records and stoking suspicion, is now less of an issue than him desperately clinging to it later with some tweets and the charity reward for Obama's college applications that were certainly never archived. "Birther still sporadically birtherizing" wasn't news at the time for a reason.He has consciously eschewed this business for his candidacy. Let's wait for the polls to see how big the group of people is that knew all about Trump's birtherism but won't stand for, well, whatever you're talking about (if anyone is even there to share old tweets at them). Yes, and those reasons were Obama putting it to bed by releasing his birth certificate and the birther being a random celebrity rather than a presidential nominee. The change in the latter being why he now had to abandon it to not have it pop up in the debates. If you think there is no significant difference between saying 'i don't believe Obama was born in the US' and 'i believe Obama faked his birth certificate and killed a doctor to hide it' that explains a lot, but I don't share your view. As for polls, that's a laughable proposition for testing the effect of a single event, even if I had claimed that this would cause a significant downfall for Trump which I didn't. We can't even tell how much of the most recent Clinton fall was caused by the deplorables speech and how much by the health issues and lying about it. You said it would hurt him. We have demonstrable swings of the Judge Curiel comments and so forth hurting his polling. If anything about this were to hurt his support, it'd be the abandonment from the perspective of people actually committed to birtherism.
On September 17 2016 09:25 Dan HH wrote:That's the basis of why I disagree with Yango that this can't hurt him at all.
'I disagree that this can't hurt him at all' means 'it will hurt him' to the point that it can be isolated in the polls from the rest of the noise? That's some caricature
|
@TheYango
To me it says that people think his ideas are good for the country, but the sacrifice of losing close friends and relatives who are illegal is too much to sway their perception.
That figure would not be 35% if they thought the ideas weren't good for the country... Much like the Black are polling at 5-10%.
So to me it suggests that once they look at the decision more objectively, they are more open to the idea, and that it benefits the whole of the United States. Decisions will never benefit everyone, otherwise there'd be no point to elections, but I do think that Trump's ideas will create more net benefit in the long term than what we currently have going.
On September 17 2016 11:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 11:14 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 17 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> discontinuing the quote chain cuz it's getting too long. I did weight it with all the other things he's said, and not just snippets of media coverage. When I said disqualifying I fully meant it. Also most of what politicians say is bland political pablum (hillary and trump included) and doesn't mean all that much. But certain things can be very very bad to say, when they have real and serious consequences.
And he gets shat on by the media for doing bad/dumb/funny things. and cuz he's entertaining. Fair enough, I agree that Trump has said many awful things. Either way, disqualifying him is a subjective term, as I don't think it's disqualifying, and neither does the law. - either way I would have been much happier if there's a lot he didn't say. certainly it's not disqualifying under the law; as there is no law. I'm not looking at his rude statements for this btw; but at ones with real policy implications and other ramifications.
Any you can list specifically? For me by far the worst would have been the Mexico quote, but generally speaking, I've found Trump to be fairly good at attacking individual people and not large groups... And him being fairly limited in his attacks except to people who he needs to beat, or individual people that will put a lot of attention on him.
As for policy implications, are you referring to bombing the shit out of terrorist families?
|
Hispanics are a strongly religious and socially conservative group, by and large. I think they could easily be brought under the Republican group if the party were willing to take a softer stance on immigration.
|
United States43465 Posts
On September 17 2016 11:15 Nevuk wrote:
I remember in college there was this feminist speaker who came to rile people up by claiming that any form of penetration was rape. I was always really confused by it - what's the end game there?
To sell her book. Nobody anywhere wants to read the book that says that basically things are okay.
|
fiwi -> perhaps I was unclear;
I'm NOT looking at his rude statements. It's NOT the attack statements against individuals or groups that are most disqualifying to me. It is major foreign policy blunders (which is the area that the Presidency has the most control over, and where they can do quite a lot regardless of other branches opinions). and to a minor extent other things which show a complete lack of understanding of the issues and solutions.
(I'm not sure which mexico quote you were referring to in your statement, I'm guessing the rapists one;)
PS you edit added more points to your statement after I'd already started writing my answer, so I missed them. I'll consolidate addressing them later.
|
On September 17 2016 11:42 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> perhaps I was unclear;
I'm NOT looking at his rude statements. It's NOT the attack statements against individuals or groups that are most disqualifying to me. It is major foreign policy blunders (which is the area that the Presidency has the most control over, and where they can do quite a lot regardless of other branches opinions). and to a minor extent other things which show a complete lack of understanding of the issues and solutions.
Ah okay, I would have thought that calling out Mexicans as rapists, or bombing Muslims are foreign relations blunders, hence I interpreted it in that way.
Anyway, as for pure policy decisions, he's said some crap, but I like his philosophy and values, so I'm sure if he has proper information from his peers, his decisions won't be too ludicrous.
|
On September 17 2016 11:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:...so I'm sure if [Trump] has proper information from his peers, his decisions won't be too ludicrous.
Well, I do hope that one way or another we don't find out that you were wrong.
|
On September 17 2016 11:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 11:42 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> perhaps I was unclear;
I'm NOT looking at his rude statements. It's NOT the attack statements against individuals or groups that are most disqualifying to me. It is major foreign policy blunders (which is the area that the Presidency has the most control over, and where they can do quite a lot regardless of other branches opinions). and to a minor extent other things which show a complete lack of understanding of the issues and solutions. Ah okay, I would have thought that calling out Mexicans as rapists, or bombing Muslims are foreign relations blunders, hence I interpreted it in that way. Anyway, as for pure policy decisions, he's said some crap, but I like his philosophy and values, so I'm sure if he has proper information from his peers, his decisions won't be too ludicrous.
the bombing terrorists' families one was disqualifying, for blatantly obvious reasons, as it also shows his values as being unfit. the mexican rapist one is an asshole thing to say; but it's not really a policy prescription, it has little direct effect, hence why it's simply lumped into the group of mean things he's said (though you're right it does add to the list of foreign policy blunders) Also, he's had more than enough time to have experts give him proper information, and he has yet to make sufficient use of it.
The other most disqualifying thing he said was the one about not upholding the NATO alliance if he feels the other haven't done enough. There are many ways by which he could've expressed reasonable views and concerns without saying what he did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
