If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Oh please. I'm Obama is at worst a symptom of the problem. The GOP spent 8 years telling everyone politicians are terrible, decades government sucks (while actively undermining it), and have a fetish about the rich. In hindsight Donald Trump is the logical conclusion to their message, more so if you consider their disdain for "PC" culture which they can't discern from when people are being polite.
I don't buy racism as the sole or majority factor in the latest turn of events, but a less charitable reading of the republican base is that 8 years of having to stare a black man in office might have been too much to bear. Particularly since the best they could do was stalemate him with congress.
It's pretty weak to blame Obama when 30% of the GOP base has acted like a liberal stereotype of conservatives. People didn't suddenly transmute into racists, xenophobes, misogynists, etc. because of Obama. All he can take credit for is getting them to become outspoken.
Or perhaps the "Get your goddamned government hands off my Medicare! " simply finds a candidate who reflects such astounding ignorance right back at them appealing? We are, after all, talking about the same group of working class voters who have health insurance for the first time in lives and like it ... until you tell them it's "Obamacare".
OAW
NOPE! Do you ever see a situation as reality instead of your fictional stereotypes and soap opera plots? Ever hear of Mr. Gruber?
57% negative view of "Obamacare" in Kentucky vs 22% negative view of Kynect. The unfavorable ratings more than doubled when Obama's name is mentioned in connection with it. And it's the same damned thing! But what I said was a "lie" in your estimation?
OAW
As if those are the same thing (Obamacare encompasses much more than each state's exchange), but keep telling yourself so you can feed your bias.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The GOP spent 8 years telling everyone politicians are terrible,
They almost universally are.
decades government sucks
It does.
and have a fetish about the rich
The people who establish and own the businesses that keep the USA going? Why would they do that?
People didn't suddenly transmute into racists, xenophobes, misogynists, etc. because of Obama. All he can take credit for is getting them to become outspoken.
The people are the same, but like many European countries, the USA isn't quite as homogenous as some like to think. However, if you want to see the worst racism, you need look no further than BLM. Misogyny? That's so last century, it was rapidly replaced with misandry, as the MSM spins that the world is run by the evil Patriarchy (dun dun dun), which supposedly benefits and victimizes men, both at the same time!
I agree, though, Obama had nothing to do with any of that. In fact, other than stripping more of our civil liberties, by doubling-down on Dubya's horrible policies, and forcing through Obamacare, he hasn't really done much of anything... except strengthen countries that directly support terrorism and more that doubling our national debt to >$20T by the time he leaves office. Yeah, he was amazeballs.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
As if those are the same thing (Obamacare encompasses much more than each state's exchange), but keep telling yourself so you can feed your bias.
The state exchanges were created by and are a core aspect of the federal law. As the article I quoted explicitly stated. Naturally you pretend like you didn't see that part because you have this pathological need to never admit that you are wrong. Even in the face of irrefutable evidence.
Mechanically, the ACA is illegal as constructed and 'passed'.
I don't get this rejection of reality and find it plain wasteful: the law passed both chambers of Congress, and after a challenge the Supreme Court found it was constitutional. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it “illegal” (the Supreme Court is “wrong”) or nefarious.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Regardless of how embarrassingly pig-headed his ideas are, Trump wants to make America better.
Hillary wants... to make herself President.
That's quite facile: first of all, they both want to become president, that's why they run. And Hillary doesn't want to make herself president either, she wants to be elected president. Both have a vision for America, and I think both believe that their vision makes America better. Thinking that only one of them is “benevolent” is a really problematic attitude towards politics in my opinion as it only serves to vilify the other side.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I'm unsure what you would like to hear from me: I'm not Hillary Clinton nor a supporter of hers. I'm just strongly against vilifying anyone, to assume that this person starts from a position of bad faith. Saying “She wants to destroy America!” is very different from “Her policies and political will destroy America!” And I object to the former.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Fixed for ya. Beyond his slogan, Trump doesn't have any solid ideas on how to actually "make america great again." He doesn't need to, more the pity.
I understand the impulse to say this, but isn't the reality a little closer to the guy says whatever the **** he wants? There are things he could say and do to get more votes, and he's been quite steadfast in his refusal to do so.
As for solid ideas, the guy is protectionist up the yang. I don't agree with his ideas, but he certainly has them.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
May 31, 2016, 11:41 AM
Originally Posted by subego
I understand the impulse to say this, but isn't the reality a little closer to the guy says whatever the **** he wants? There are things he could say and do to get more votes, and he's been quite steadfast in his refusal to do so.
Every other candidate said the things they were supposed to say in order to get more votes. With Trump in the ring it didn't work.
If Lindsay Graham can advocate for Ted Cruz, someone he thinks is reprehensible, I guess Jerry Brown can stump for Hillary. Dislike is all relative now, on the sliding scale.
There are things he could say and do to get more votes, and he's been quite steadfast in his refusal to do so.
I think our perception of Trumps is fundamentally different: in my view he has changed opinions constantly to pander to the Republican base, purely to get votes. Examples that come to mind are his change of opinion on many social issues as is his sudden love of the Second Amendment (An endorsement like “My son is a long-time NRA member, and he has so many guns that it sometimes scares me.” should be offensive by any ‘traditional’ NRA member.). And of course you have promises that will be forgotten the day after the election, e. g. that “Mexico will pay for the wall”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I think our perception of Trumps is fundamentally different: in my view he has changed opinions constantly to pander to the Republican base, purely to get votes. Examples that come to mind are his change of opinion on many social issues as is his sudden love of the Second Amendment (An endorsement like “My son is a long-time NRA member, and he has so many guns that it sometimes scares me.” should be offensive by any ‘traditional’ NRA member.). And of course you have promises that will be forgotten the day after the election, e. g. that “Mexico will pay for the wall”.
What's his real position on guns he's ignoring to put out this fake position?
Some U.S. intelligence officials are concerned that Donald Trump's "shoot from the hip" style could pose national security risks as they prepare to give him a routine pre-election briefing once he is formally anointed as the Republican presidential nominee.
Eight senior security officials told Reuters they had concerns over briefing Trump, whose brash, unpredictable campaign style has been a feature of his rise as an insurgent candidate. Despite their worries, the officials said the "Top Secret" briefing to each candidate would not deviate from the usual format to avoid any appearance of bias.
Most of the officials asked for anonymity to discuss a domestic political issue.
Current and former officials said that the scandal over Hillary Clinton's use of emails also raises concerns about her handling of sensitive information. The likely Democratic nominee is facing an FBI probe into whether security was compromised and laws were broken by her use of a private email server for government business while she was Secretary of State.
"The only candidate who has proven incapable of handling sensitive information is Hillary Clinton," said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "If there is anyone they should be worried about it is Hillary Clinton."
But Trump's lack of foreign policy experience, his volatile style, and his little known team of foreign policy advisers make him a unique case, the officials said.
"People are very nervous," said one senior U.S. security official.
Intelligence and other security and foreign policy officials are also trying to determine "who on (Trump's) team are trustworthy, the official added. "We've never had a situation like this before. Ever."
A spokesperson for Trump's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Other officials downplayed such worries, noting that the traditional briefing, while classified as Top Secret, is mostly a broad overview of national security issues and does not include the most sensitive government secrets about intelligence sources and operations.
In the post-Second World War era, confirmed U.S. presidential nominees have traditionally received the briefing from intelligence officials -- including spy agency chiefs -- covering a broad range of national security issues.
The nominees are usually briefed shortly after their party nominating conventions, and are allowed to include one or two aides who must undergo security checks. Current and former officials say the nominees are explicitly warned not to share the contents of the briefing, which includes detailed intelligence assessments.
After election day, presidents-elect receive the same Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, that the sitting president gets, complete with material on the intelligence agencies' sources, methods, and covert operations.
Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Reuters that he shared some of the concerns over how Trump, who has never held public office, might use information from the briefing.
"I would be very concerned with Mr. Trump's ability to know what he can and can't discuss" publicly about the contents of an intelligence briefing, said Schiff, who has endorsed Clinton for president.
Schiff said one consequence of intelligence agencies' worries about Trump's reputation as a loose cannon could be that briefers circumscribe some of the information they provide to Trump and Hillary Clinton, his prospective Democratic opponent.
Trump has tended to make broad-brush statements on foreign issues rather than delve into policy nuances. He drew criticism from some former national security officials last month when, without evidence, he quickly tweeted that the downing of an EgyptAir flight appeared to be a terrorist attack.
Clinton is honing in on national security as a key potential weakness for Trump, and is set to deliver a foreign policy speech on Thursday designed to portray the billionaire businessman as unfit for the White House.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Every other candidate said the things they were supposed to say in order to get more votes. With Trump in the ring it didn't work.
I'm not talking about him reeling it in to the extent he becomes another establishment candidate. Just a smidge.
Testing religion to be allowed entry into the country is the best example. What a standard candidate would do is dog whistle the sentiment, but would never sketch out a policy like that for the same reason they don't sketch out policy on distributing unicorns. It's not even a question of how much they'd want the policy, or whether there's political will to enact it, it's a question of what's offered being literally not possible.
He could have stuck with the sentiment and dropped the dog whistle. People can overlook that, or maybe even hop on board. In other words, it can be argued.... this is opposed to the unicorn, which shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the world works.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell worries that Donald Trump could ruin the GOP's relationship with Hispanics beyond repair.
While he is committed to voting for Trump, McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on Thursday that the GOP nominee could push Latinos away from the party in a way similar to how black voters distanced themselves from the Republican Party in 1964 when it was led by conservative Barry Goldwater.
Recalling how he supported Democratic president Lyndon Johnson over Goldwater that year, McConnell was asked if he worried Trump could have the same effect on Hispanics, who overwhelmingly view the real estate tycoon unfavorably.
"I do. I do," he said on "The Lead," pointing to Trump's recent scorching criticism of a prominent Republican Latina politician, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez.
"And I think the attacks that he's routinely engaged in, for example, going after Susana Martinez, the Republican governor of New Mexico, the chairman of the Republican Governors' Association, I think, was a big mistake," McConnell said.
Regarding Goldwater's vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, McConnell said, "It did define our party, for at least African-American voters, and it still does today. That was a complete shift that occurred that year and we've never be able to get them back. So I think it was a defining moment for Republicans with regard to the accomplishments that we had made for African-Americans going back to the Civil War."
And no Sen. McConnell ... it was not a "complete shift" that happened all of a sudden in 1964 with Barry Goldwater. Let's not pretend he was some sort of "anomaly". It was the BEGINNING of a shift that continued and cemented itself because the GOP wholeheartedly embraced the Southern Strategy for the next 50+ years. Trump is just the culmination of that. Someone who will say bluntly what most GOP politicians only "dog-whistle". So don't act all brand new because he finds quite a receptive audience among your rank and file. The GOP Establishment has been priming that pump for DECADES.
Their director of Hispanic outreach just resigned and her replacement is scrubbing her twitter of all the critical remarks she made about Trump in the past few months. It's a shit show.
And just a day after "endorsing" Trump we now have Speaker Ryan saying that his latest antics are "out of left field". Has he not noticed that his man has been running a bigoted campaign from the get go? This is, after all, the same man who's very first foray into the political arena was being the Birther-In-Chief! WTF?
Just a day after House Speaker Paul Ryan endorsed Donald Trump, he turned around and blasted the presumptive Republican nominee for attacking the judge overseeing the Trump University lawsuit.
While explaining his endorsement Friday on a Wisconsin radio station, Ryan -- unprompted -- ripped Trump's attacks on the "Mexican heritage" of U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel.
"Look, the comment about the judge, just was out of left field for my mind," Ryan said on WISN in Milwaukee. "It's reasoning I don't relate to, I completely disagree with the thinking behind that."
And then Ryan issued a warning to Trump, that he will speak out when he feels he needs to.
"So he clearly says and does things I don't agree with and I've had to speak up on time to time when that has occurred and I'll continue to do that if that's necessary -- I hope it's not," Ryan said.
Ryan's comments came shortly after Hillary Clinton's campaign slammed Trump in a statement for targeting the U.S.-born judge's Hispanic descent.
"The fact that Donald Trump doesn't see Judge Curiel and his family as Americans makes him unfit to be president of this great nation, a nation of immigrants," Lorella Praeli, director of Latino outreach for the Clinton campaign, said in a statement.
Trump has controversially gone after Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action lawsuit against Trump's now-defunct training program in California, and suggested his "Mexican heritage" could prevent him from judging Trump fairly as a result of Trump's strident anti-immigration rhetoric.
He told The Wall Street Journal that "it's an inherent conflict of interest" for Curiel to sit on the case because Trump has proposed building a border wall between the United States and Mexico.
In the statement from the Clinton campaign, Praeli praised Curiel's experience and qualifications, saying, "Judge Curiel and his family epitomize the American Dream. His parents worked hard to give their U.S.-born children a better life. He and his brother became successful lawyers. His other brother served in Vietnam."
"In Trump's version of America, this Latino family isn't really America. But they are America. And Hillary Clinton will fight for ALL Americans," Praeli wrote.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Curiel, who was born in Indiana, is at the center of the controversy surrounding the Trump University lawsuit. He allowed for the "playbooks" about Trump's embattled namesake school to be opened to the public, saying there is now public interest in them since Trump "became the front-runner in the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential race, and has placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue."
Trump and campaign aides have repeatedly brought up Curiel's heritage while questioning his ability to judge the case, and has also criticized Curiel for his membership in the former La Raza Lawyer's Association, which is a leading Latino lawyers group in California.
"I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest," Trump recently told the Wall Street Journal.
With the shitty jobs report I'm like, "Trump has a chance" and then I watch all his self contradicting and increasingly transparent racism and I'm like, "people will get tired of his shit."
Trump is not running a bigoted or racist campaign. Religion and nationality is not race. And being intolerant and or suspicios of the most bigoted, anti-semitic, anti-homosexual, anti-equal rights, anti-western cult on the planet is a reaction to bigotry.
Maybe the communists and SJWs need to figure out the definition of those "big words" before they start their smeer campaign.
(I have my own reservations about Trump, but "bigotry" and "racism" dont even make the list)
There are those among us for whom little things like facts matter. After Hillary Clinton's epic takedown of Donald Trump in her major foreign policy speech yesterday he predictably claimed she was just making it all up. Speaking utter BS confidently as he seems naturally inclined to do. Which led to this Twitter exchange today ...
Naturally one has to keep it short and sweet on Twitter. But she provided a link to her website which juxtaposes each and every charge she made in her speech with the actual quotes of Trump's statements that he now claims don't exist. Complete with links to various news sites where you can see it for yourself in black and white.
Trump is not running a bigoted or racist campaign. Religion and nationality is not race. And being intolerant and or suspicios of the most bigoted, anti-semitic, anti-homosexual, anti-equal rights, anti-western cult on the planet is a reaction to bigotry.
Maybe the communists and SJWs need to figure out the definition of those "big words" before they start their smeer campaign.
(I have my own reservations about Trump, but "bigotry" and "racism" dont even make the list)
You appear to be under the erroneous impression that bigotry is exclusively rooted in racial intolerance but it's not ...
bigot - a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
That being said, when Trump starts talking about building a wall on the southern border let's not pretend that he isn't talking about trying to stop people who look like this ....
And never mind that nearly HALF of the illegal immigrants in the US came here legally and simply overstayed their visas. So such a wall would be insanely expensive and highly ineffective. Especially considering the fact that there are over twice as many overstays from people crossing the NORTHERN border than the southern border per the official Department of Homeland Security Entry/Exit Overstay Report. And we certainly don't see Trump advocating for a wall across the Canadian border now do we? Imagine that.
But you see that's not the point. Trump's rhetoric about building a wall on the Mexican border isn't rooted in realistic immigration policy. It's all about tapping into the anxieties of white Americans who fear the "browning of America".
Trump is not running a bigoted or racist campaign. Religion and nationality is not race. And being intolerant and or suspicios of the most bigoted, anti-semitic, anti-homosexual, anti-equal rights, anti-western cult on the planet is a reaction to bigotry.
Maybe the communists and SJWs need to figure out the definition of those "big words" before they start their smeer campaign.
(I have my own reservations about Trump, but "bigotry" and "racism" dont even make the list)
He's spent the past few days calling a natural born citizen a Mexican and having Mexican heritage is grounds for recusal.
As for your priorities, I think it's a little troubling that you don't rank bigotry and racism as red flags that give you pause.
He's spent the past few days calling a natural born citizen a Mexican and having Mexican heritage is grounds for recusal.
As for your priorities, I think it's a little troubling that you don't rank bigotry and racism as red flags that give you pause.
It's been a long week and I'm simply not inclined to try to copy/paste a relevant quote on my iPhone. Perhaps one of these days we might actually have a decent mobile version of the forums around here. But this article is SPOT ON with the point you are making.
Trump is not running a bigoted or racist campaign. Religion and nationality is not race. And being intolerant and or suspicios of the most bigoted, anti-semitic, anti-homosexual, anti-equal rights, anti-western cult on the planet is a reaction to bigotry
Then I don't think you've been listening to what he has actually said. Take just his most recent comments on the “Mexican” judge who presided over the Trump University case (who is a natural born citizen). He claimed he had a conflict of interest due to the judge's ancestry and his idea of building a wall at the Mexican border — an openly racist remark. (Just try and replace “Mexican” with Jewish and “because I want to build a wall” with “because I have German ancestry” …)
But of course, you can find a long laundry list of similar comments (from the top of my head: “most Mexican illegals are rapists”, John McCain is a wuss because he “let himself get caught”, Trump, a serial philanderer, called out Hillary Clinton for supposedly “enabling her husbands affairs”, he claimed Ted Cruz's father had a hand in JFK's assassination). I didn't even get into his anti-muslim remarks that even made fellow Republicans cringe. But I could've.
Your defense seems to be that “Mexicans are not a race”. Then at best your argument yields that Trumps arguments are xenophobic and not racist. Is that really the argument you want to make?!? Would you be happy to vote for someone who isn't “racist and bigoted” but instead “xenophobic and bigoted”? In case of this judge and many other “Mexicans”, Trump is actually talking about American citizens who are Latinos — and Latinos are a race.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Still waiting for some examples of the opposite... once again, i didn't go looking for this...
(not a single American flag in sight)
I guess my question to the anti-trump/democrat camp is, why do you support and encourage such behavior and violence? Why is violence so engrained in your side of politics?
@OreoCookie
Is "Mexican" a race? And while i understand the analogy you are trying to make with Jewishness, I hope you realize that Jewishness is unique as it is also an ethnicity (unlike other world religions and *nationalities*). Do you see the difference?
I guess my question to the anti-trump/democrat camp is, why do you support and encourage such behavior and violence? Why is violence so engrained in your side of politics?
Anti-Trump ≠ Democrat. Why are you ignoring all the Republican opposition to Trump? None of the former living Republican Presidents support him. Lindsey Graham equated his candidacy to being shot in the head and a catastrophe to the Republican Party. Opposing Trump doesn't in the least mean you're condoning violence or that you are a Democrat — that's your claim.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Is "Mexican" a race?
Trump used “Mexican” as a blanket term for an American Latino.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
And while i understand the analogy you are trying to make with Jewishness, I hope you realize that Jewishness is unique as it is also an ethnicity (unlike other world religions and *nationalities*).
No, Jews are not an ethnicity, they are a cultural and religious group. You have everything from black Ethiopian Jews to Sephardic Jews to pasty white Ashkenazy Jews. In Europe and America, though, the vast majority of Jews is white, and this is what we have come to associate with what Jews look like — because that is what they look like where we are.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Do you see the difference?
No, I don't. But even I you were right, you should still answer my question: how is it better for Trump to be “xenophobic and bigoted” rather than “racist and bigoted”? And given the types of arguments we are making now, are you still really convinced that Trump runs a campaign “free of racism and bigotry”? I've given you plenty of examples where he attacked people from both sides of the aisle. Doesn't that faze you in the least?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Anti-Trump ≠ Democrat. Why are you ignoring all the Republican opposition to Trump? None of the former living Republican Presidents support him.
That'll probably change by the time the convention rolls around.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That'll probably change by the time the convention rolls around.
It won't.
The insincerity dripping off some of the people at the top of the party as they have to say positive things about Trump's candidacy is hilarious. It was inevitable Ryan had to come out and say he approves of Trump as he is in party leadership and ultimately they all have to hold their nose and claim to back him as its part of their job but he (like many) will continuously walk back that support as he needs to when he is trying to get his own congressional candidates re-elected. As polling numbers start to roll in for competitive congressional races even more GOP candidates will veer away from Trump. Quite a few aren't even bothering to go to the convention because they don't want that stink tainting their campaigns.
And then there's the money. The Bush fundraising machine certainly will not jump on the Trump train and they hold some of the most effective bulk donor lists in the GOP. The peasants backing Trump may not like the super rich neocons who fund the PACs but less than half the usual mega donors are willing to assist in the presidential election and worse yet for Trump a few are actively spending money against him. Those hillbillies that show up at the rallies don't have the means to fill the coffers to run the same kind of campaign as has been done in previous years.
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
I disagree. While the left dog-whistles, i dont buy it.
And regarding Jewishness, i personally see it as unique case, because of culture, religion AND ethnicity. (I am aware of ashkenazi/sephardim/mizarhi communities, and the inconsequential difference in the color of their skin).
The discussion about xenophobia/race/bigotry has only become an issue because the left has been trying to desperately make it an issue. (Maybe cause theres nothing else of any substance they have to debate)
Id much rather discuss the "lefts" prone to violence and intimidation during the campaign. But no one on that side of politics seems to be willing or able to discuss it. It always turns into the racist/sexist/homophobe bs (which i noticed happening when Romney was running as well; big surprise, right?).
AND FTR, which might surprise you, Im not a fan of Trump. For the *same* reasons i wasn't a fan of the incumbent. As a libertarian, i see them both as part of the problem in politics, and both practice the same divisive race baiting/driven politics. Where one appealed to one race, the other appeals to the other race. It's a problem when both do it, not just one.
Cheers
EDIT> Definition of Ethnicity: an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like (dictionary.com)
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jun 5, 2016 at 10:38 PM.
)
A-****ing-men.
" simply finds a candidate who reflects such astounding ignorance right back at them appealing? We are, after all, talking about the same group of working class voters who have health insurance for the first time in lives and like it ... until you tell them it's "Obamacare". 
Top