I find that line of attack especially unfair considering that she’s two years younger than Trump and seven years younger than Sanders. If one was to pick a candidate based on actuarial tables then she’d be the clear favorite to stay alive and healthy for the next 4-8 years.
6 Likes
This guy, surely?
Of ‘serious’ candidates, O’Malley or Rubio, I’d guess?
I meant between Clinton, Sanders and Trump.
I bet you can’t. I don’t fit preconceived notions well.
ETA - I don’t believe I ever even criticized Hillary’s statement directly, and definitely not her follow up statement.
1 Like
let’s have a look at what a black writer whom i respect greatly thinks about this whole thing–
“The safe space for the act of being white endures today. This weekend, the media, an ostensibly great American institution, saw it challenged and—not for the first time—organized to preserve it. For speaking a truth, backed up by data, Clinton was accused of promoting bigotry. No. The true crime was endangering white consciousness. So it was when the president asserted that it was stupid to arrest a man for breaking into his own home. So it was when the president said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. And so it is when reformers suggest police not stop citizens on so flimsy a pretext as furtive movements. The need to be white is a sensitive matter—one which our institutions are inexorably and mindlessly bound to protect.”
Ta-Nehisi Coates
i frankly see nothing within that statement to criticize and it goes deeper than clinton’s original statement. if, at this late date some 150 years after the end of slavery, some 50 years after the march on washington, individuals can’t move beyond irrational racist beliefs they deserve to be regarded as “deplorable” at a minimum and should be publicly and often. i’ve grown enormously weary of your attempts to make this into a falsely balanced “both sides do it” argument. i promise to respond to no more of your entries in this discussion but i make this last plea to encourage you once more to check your premises and see if you are not drawing the wrong conclusions in this situation. i wish you well.
13 Likes
Why would he… he’s bringing him voters and support. Of course, they won’t alienate him.
3 Likes
Well, you made me look at Duke’s website, which made me want to take a shower. Fun fact- he refers to himself as “Dr.”, which is bogus. From what I can tell, he cannot fully support Trump because Trump does not hate the Jews, But SPLC views Duke as irrelevant, which is interesting
“David Duke still portrays himself as a white nationalist hero, but the fact is he hasn’t done anything political in years,” said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a watchdog group that monitors racist groups. “Duke’s having a moment in the news now, and he needs this. In the white supremacist world, he’s seen as an opportunist, someone who is living off the movement.”
4 Likes
Goal-post moving. I was discussing policy points that are held as official planks in party platform–hence the statement “formal policy”–not general denialism.
However, in that particular point, I will observe that, heh, both sides do engage in anti-vax behaviors.
So I’ll ask again, and being more specific this time: do you have any actual formal policy points that are official promoted by the GOP that you feel are more in accordance with observable reality than the related policy in the same topical area is from the Democratic Party?
3 Likes
Yes, perfect - insider all the way, even if she might loose to the worst candidate ever. Are you trying to make this seem like a sensible way to get things done?
She marshaled her influence in ways that broke her own party rules. Sorry. Not OK with me.
2 Likes
Have you no idea at all how our political system works?
As you ask, yes, I do believe that a completely sensible way to get a president - whose primary job is unifying as much as possible disparate factions and making decisions that reflect a compromise between sometimes wildly differing views - is to get someone who has been spending decades honing the skills needed for this by building coalitions and earning support among other politicians while working with them on a variety of political issues.
3 Likes
It isn’t goal post moving, because I didn’t set up any posts. Maybe you did, but we aren’t even playing the same game, apparently. I have tried to approach this from a broader scale - bigger picture - but evidently that is getting lost.
I have utterly failed to convey anything meaningful here to anyone but maybe a couple people I should have dropped it after posting the link to the CGP Grey video, as apparently I am being misconstrued as supporting Trump, racists, and now the GOP. My effort to encourage one to look at the bigger idea of labeling and condemning people on a mass scale - no matter your reasons - is only going to lead to worse things, has become muddled. (Yes but these people REALLY are bad, I hear you say. Ok, if you all say so.)
I’m not here to defend any formal policy points of the GOP, nothing I said was directly about politics. It doesn’t matter because in practice the Ds and Rs are running things about the same. Who locked the ATF’s NFA registry for full auto weapons? Reagan. Who deregulated the banks? Clinton. Who increased the size and scope of domestic surveillance, the opposite of smaller government? Bush. Who, after receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, is still condoning drone strikes that included civilian targets? Obama. Their existence has been reduced to simply opposing the other side. If Obama signed a declaration that we should all take deep breaths for oxygen, some people would hold theirs and turn blue in defiance.
3 Likes
Pardon me - let me clarify: Letting somebody that cheats have no reperucssions is a sensible way to get things done?
to quote myself
4 Likes
I can’t read that without thinking of this Bojack Horseman episode where Todd in in Jail, being courted to join two gangs and trying to make up his mind.
“I agree with the Latin Kings on social issues, but fiscally I’m more of an Aryan…”
(I know, this would be better expressed in gif form, but I don’t have the time.)
3 Likes
That paper looks like it’s about policies and influence, not elections.
My point is it’s still the voters who cast the votes, and votes decide the outcome of elections.
Yes, there’s advertising, attack ads, super PACs, sensationalism in the media with a poor signal-to-noise ratio, echo chambers to get trapped in, disinformation, conspiracy theories, voter ID laws, and pretty much everything else, but in the end, that’s all just influencing voters to vote a certain way or stay home.
1 Like
You’ve been debunked by Snopes, for chrissakes, but you’re still pathetically trying to double down on the libel.
As for Hillary, the Lancet did not retract until many years after the scientific consensus was clear. Meanwhile Hillary held on, after every other major journal had denounced Wakefield. And apparently as recently as 2015 she was still arranging Washington access for antivaxxers like Mark Harman. (Because her base is chock-full of them, of course.)
Now, I wouldn’t have brought any of that up if you weren’t insisting on repeatedly and knowingly lying about my favored candidate. So you can take pride in having Hillary’s anti-science record brought to light here by your very own efforts!
People say Drumpf is a racist because racists support him. People say Hillary’s a liar. Maybe it doesn’t help her when her supporters spread lies…
That’s a good point: effectively disenfranchising voters takes away their decisions. Totes deplorable. Thankfully a lot of voter ID laws are being challenged and overturned / remedied (everyone donate to the ACLU!).
If you’re talking about Bernie Sanders losing to Hillary Clinton, I think demographics are a better explanation than any “collusion”. E.g. Hillary did overwhelmingly better among African American voters.
Clinton is currently ahead by a few points.
And her floor seems to be about the same as Trump’s ceiling.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
This campaign season does remind me of those other two in that, in each case, an allegedly dangerous radical was marginalized and a relatively bland and uninspiring establishment figure was nominated instead.
1 Like
Isn’t that basically every Dem. Primary after McGovern’s loss?
2 Likes
