The New American Politics thread

[Buster]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Trump has made it pretty clear that if you're not white, he's coming for you.

Mexicans: 'bringing drugs, bringing crime, they're rapists, and some I assume are good people'.

Black people: 'I will restore law and order'. You don't have to be Alan Turing to decode that.

Muslims: He wants to ban all Muslim immigration. Well if he does that and there are still terror attacks in the United States (which there would be, because what he wants to do is impossible), what's his next logical step? Might it be to round up the Muslims already in America 'until we figure out what's going on'?

As to the point of Khan's speech: one doesn't need to be a white man to be considered a "Real American" and Donald Trump is a charlatan fraud. Anything missing?

Briefly:

Mexico: country not a race
"Black people = law and order:": you're projecting/speculation
"Muslim immigration ban": you forgot the word temporary. It's also a classic Trumpian double-bind. If you recognized it as a technique, you might be less worried about the policy implications. The rest is nonsense speculation.
"Khan's speech" : his point was to inflame the lovers-of-victim-politics.

[jammies]

I'm still waiting for Buster to explain how calling Hillary a compulsive liar and warmonger is justified while calling Trump a racist is inaccurate, unfair, and possibly symptomatic of terminal SJW.

I expect I'll be waiting a long, long time.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by DFO

Pretty sure that nicely crafted statement was well after his initial (and more representative) twitter rants

I sought nothing more than to correct a false assumption. The rest of the context is up to you to discern and judge.

[Canuck-Hater]

One thing I've learned is Trump supporters will come up with any excuse to rationalize Trump's blatant racism during this campaign.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think his point was that if he'd made that exact statement in the first place that probably would've been the end of the story. He might even had picked up some support.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Buster

Imma play some speed chess on you here.

Mexico: country not a race
"Black people = law and order:": you're projecting/speculation
"Muslim immigration ban": you forgot the word temporary. It's also a classic Trumpian double-bind. If you recognized it as a technique, you might be less worried about the policy implications. The rest is nonsense speculation.
"Khan's speech" : his point was to inflame the lovers-of-victim-politics.

Whew.

[sun]

Originally Posted by Buster

Imma play some speed chess on you here.

Mexico: country not a race
"Black people = law and order:": you're projecting/speculation
"Muslim immigration ban": you forgot the word temporary. It's also a classic Trumpian double-bind. If you recognized it as a technique, you might be less worried about the policy implications. The rest is nonsense speculation.
"Khan's speech" : his point was to inflame the lovers-of-victim-politics.

Whew.

Try a little less condescension next time. You might have a point, but it will get lost in your pissy, patronizing tone.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Buster

Factually inaccurate.

"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe. The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorist who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country and do us further harm," Trump said.

Sigh.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by sun

Try a little less condescension next time. You might have a point, but it will get lost in your pissy, patronizing tone.

fair comment, I did a ninja edit.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Buster

Factually inaccurate.

"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe. The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorist who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country and do us further harm," Trump said.

That was about the 25th thing he said well after the inflammatory stuff. Again, if all he said was that, we'd hardly be talking about it

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by sun

Try a little less condescension next time. You might have a point, but it will get lost in your pissy, patronizing tone.

And yet he/she wonders why he can't have regular conversations

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm still waiting for Buster to explain how calling Hillary a compulsive liar and warmonger is justified while calling Trump a racist is inaccurate, unfair, and possibly symptomatic of terminal SJW.

I expect I'll be waiting a long, long time.

This is a good point and merits additional discussion

[MissTeeks]

If you set yourself up for recurring credit card donations to Trump's website and want to cancel them, good luck:

https://m.mic.com/articles/150640/do...ial#.NVsMHwIJt

You used to love Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, but now you've had a change of heart — and want to cancel your recurring monthly donation to his campaign?

Too bad.

As the screenshots below demonstrate, there is no option on Trump's website to cancel monthly contributions or remove your credit card information: Once you've set up a donation, you may only switch from one valid credit card to another.

On Wednesday, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond tweeted a screenshot of an email from a disenchanted Trump donor who alleged that the campaign has not returned voice message requests to cancel contributions (The identity of the alleged donor is not shown).

After investigating, Mic can confirm that there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump's donation site: We set up a recurring donation of $1 and found no button or other obvious way to cancel payments or remove a credit card from the system — either on the homepage, the "update card" page, or in your contribution confirmation email.

Once you're registered, if you try to change your payment information on Trump's site, you will see no option to remove your credit card — only "update" it.

Mic also made a $1 recurring contribution to the campaign for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and received a confirmation email that — by contrast — provides an email address for donors to write in with problems.

Unlike the message from Trump's campaign, the confirmation from Clinton's also acknowledges that you've made a recurring donation in the first place, warning you to expect a monthly charge.

If you go to Clinton's campaign site, there's also an accessible option to remove your card from the site. Clicking this button immediately halts your donations, a campaign representative confirmed in an email to Mic.

The Federal Election Commission does not have rules explicitly about the cancellation of recurring campaign contributions, said FEC spokesperson Christian Hilland.

"Our regulations do not speak specifically to that issue," he said. The only way problems with recurring donations would trigger an investigation, he explained, was if the total added up to more than the federally mandated maximum donation of $2,700.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That was about the 25th thing he said well after the inflammatory stuff. Again, if all he said was that, we'd hardly be talking about it

Yup. Good point.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

One thing I've learned is Trump supporters will come up with any excuse to rationalize Trump's blatant racism during this campaign.

I'm always amazed at how Trump apologists try to make it seem like all he's doing is discussing important policy matters surrounding things like immigration, security.

"Ban muslims (temporarily)" is not a reasonable policy proposal. It's an idiotic oversimplification of the issue (not all Muslims are the same or come from the same places) and its clearly pandering to bigotry. Its not like he even attempts to make a somewhat mature reasonable argument out of it, like saying "we need to understand the most high risk sources of terror suspects and re-design the policies assessing immigration from those parts of the world, while still honoring our freedom of religion and protecting people of all backgrounds and ethnicities who contribute to this country."

They pretend they can't see the difference between those statements. But they can, they just don't care because the bigotry is okay in their books.

If Trump wanted to make reasonable and nuanced arguments about these issues, he would. Its not like the world is misunderstanding him.

[GGG]

I believe his rephrased stance was to ban immigration from countries with ties to Islamic terror. So while the bigoted portion is gone it appears he is now wanting to ban all immigration from Europe temporarily as well.

The issue really is he doesn't have a policy position he has a dog whistle

[Street Pharmacist]

I think Buster and Corsi (as do I) would agree with this:

Liberal pundits write viciously about Trump. But they wrote viciously about Romney, McCain, Bush... and they wonder why people outside their circle stopped listening.

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad.
He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president.
I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

If every Republican is always unfit for the presidency then Trump is no different and it shouldn’t be surprising that rank-and-file Republican voters are lining up behind him. They know there aren’t actually any Republicans of which the media approves. There’s a joke among Republicans that the only GOP candidate the media likes is one who has no chance of winning. John McCain was a media darling when he lost in the 2000 primary to George W. Bush but not when he was actually running against a Democrat in 2008.
The media bear a lot of responsibility for the creation of Trump, and treating all Republican presidential candidates as if they’re a danger to American society is just one way they’ve done it. It’s unlikely that the media are going to en-masse recognize their bias, but perhaps if the Trump campaign has taught the media anything, it’s to ratchet down the rhetoric so that words mean something again.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ource=facebook

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think Buster and Corsi (as do I) would agree with this:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ource=facebook

This post should be stickied.

I don't consider myself a Trump supporter, and my intent is regularly mi-understood in that regard.

This sums up my view very well:

ratchet down the rhetoric so that words mean something again.

If we convince everyone that Trump is a racist, white-power, KKK-bred lunatic, then what happens when one of those actually shows up?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, that's a story worth telling. There was a similar article in The Atlantic this week:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...d-wolf/493928/

Dangerously ignorant about policy and incurious about the world? That was the line on George W. Bush 16 years ago. Radical, unacceptable views about women? Said of any number of Republicans. Overrated business career? Just ask Mitt Romney about that one. (Not only was Romney’s success credited to his father’s connection, The New York Times reported,“Mr. Romney, though, never ran a corner store or a traditional business. Instead, he excelled as a deal maker,” which sounds eerily familiar.) A temperament unsuited for the Oval Office? Some said the same thing about John McCain. Fascism? Two videos uploaded by users to a MoveOn contest likened Bush to Adolph Hitler in 2004. Extreme positions? “He’s the most conservative nominee that they’ve had going back to Goldwater,” top Obama aide David Plouffe said of Romney in 2012.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Buster

Briefly:

Mexico: country not a race
"Black people = law and order:": you're projecting/speculation
"Muslim immigration ban": you forgot the word temporary. It's also a classic Trumpian double-bind. If you recognized it as a technique, you might be less worried about the policy implications. The rest is nonsense speculation.
"Khan's speech" : his point was to inflame the lovers-of-victim-politics.

Briefly:

Mexico: I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, other than to deflect with a BS semantics argument.

In 2016, stating you're the 'law and order' candidate is tantamount to telling black people 'I'm coming for you'. Deny it if you want, but willful ignorance is not a virtue.

http://www.timescolonist.com/critics...uage-1.2308478

I'm sorry. The word 'temporary' makes it so much better. Trump mentioned how long 'temporary' is, right? Is it two weeks? Six months? A year? A decade? Until the Iran nuclear deal expires?

A 'classic Trumpian double bind' is one of the battiest things I've ever heard. If you take him at face value, he's an awful excuse for a human being. If you assume there's another Donald Trump, then you might ask why the other one never shows up.

Khan's speech showed Donald Trump can be hooked with the most transparent and obvious ruses imaginable. A Muslim American officer was killed in the Iraq war and his parents (understandably, based on everything Trump has said and done for the last year) spoke out against him in a very public, very political setting.

Every other politician in the country would have politely thanked the Khans and their son for their sacrifice and service, and maybe if they were feeling confident, pull a pocket constitution out of their jacket and say 'I've got my own copy' or something.

This buffoon is still talking about it a week+ afterward. All the while, he's getting brutalized in the polls for it. He doesn't know when to quit.

Yet everything this orangutan has said and done is diminished because of some emails (which you can read) and an incident in the Middle East where 4 (Yes, four. Not four hundred. Not forty. Not even fourteen. ####ing FOUR) Americans were killed? Are you serious. Operation Iraqi Freedom left 4,424 Americans killed and nearly 32,000 wounded.

Four bodies in Libya, I'm sorry, that's the cost of doing business as THE superpower. And I don't believe for a second that Donald Trump is going to be better at keeping the world and the United States safe than Hillary Clinton.

"Oh she gives speeches to Goldman Sachs". Yep. She does. She still pledged to appoint a Supreme Court justice who'd overturn citizen's united (which is the single most important step to fixing the American political system).

Maybe not so 'briefly'.