The New American Politics thread

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I am happy to pile onto that one if need be, but before I do--wasn't she just waving?

[nik-]

Yeah, in no way do I think she was doing anything but waving, but it's still hilarious given the context of this election.

[nik-]

Although, if she were being judged on her roman salute, she definitely would have gotten points for her form and for the direct path her arm/hand took to form it.

8.4/10 probably.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, that is not racist. It's stupid and terrible in many ways, but it isn't racist.

This is racist, though Trump didn't actually say this. He said that some Mexicans are rapists and criminals (true), and that those are the Mexicans who cross the border illegally (false). It's xenophobic dog whistle stuff, for sure.

Clearly, quintessentially racist statements.

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to parse this. It's not that nuanced, is it?

We're arguing semantics here. Iowa is talking about reading between the lines, not explicit racist statements. You're trying to argue is not explicitly racist mini one disagrees with you. You can be pedantic to show you're intellectually above the fray, but it's an irrelevant position to take here. It's neither morally superior to argue racist dogwhistle language isn't racist, but it's irrelevant to discussion here

[T@T]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Trump the ignorant racist.

So is a large percentage of Americans, beware of the secret vote!

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

We're arguing semantics here. Iowa is talking about reading between the lines, not explicit racist statements. You're trying to argue is not explicitly racist mini one disagrees with you. You can be pedantic to show you're intellectually above the fray, but it's an irrelevant position to take here. It's neither morally superior to argue racist dogwhistle language isn't racist, but it's irrelevant to discussion here

I think it is relevant to the discussion here, certainly more relevant than some woman inadvertently hailing Hitler. The types of simplistic analyses that you and Iowa are advocating are contributing to the intellectually vacuous nature of U.S. politics. Statements such as "Trump is a racist," "Hilary is a criminal," "Trump is a fascist," etc. are over-simplifications of important issues this election. But rather than appealing to the rational person, these statements represent emotional appeals to the average dolt.

Having said that, it's tough to assign blame for what is occurring. I'd say the lack of legitimate news media, the adversarial nature of an entrenched two party system, and the weak education system in the States are the primary contributing factors to the situation we are in.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I am happy to pile onto that one if need be, but before I do--wasn't she just waving?

Oh yeah, it wasn't a nazi salute, it's just hilarious.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I think it is relevant to the discussion here, certainly more relevant than some woman inadvertently hailing Hitler. The types of simplistic analyses that you and Iowa are advocating are contributing to the intellectually vacuous nature of U.S. politics. Statements such as "Trump is a racist," "Hilary is a criminal," "Trump is a fascist," etc. are over-simplifications of important issues this election. But rather than appealing to the rational person, these statements represent emotional appeals to the average dolt.

Having said that, it's tough to assign blame for what is occurring. I'd say the lack of legitimate news media, the adversarial nature of an entrenched two party system, and the weak education system in the States are the primary contributing factors to the situation we are in.

It is a simplification, but not because of verbiage or semantics. It's simply because that's our attention span with the current news consumption. Trump is racist. To befuddle or obfuscate to rise above the fray on am intellectual stance doesn't change the fact that his policies and attitudes are subjectively racist.

What good is gained by waging this battle? Far more harm is done by suggesting that Trump's comments re Mexican immigrants were not technically racist, which while both technically true and technically false, belies What we all know it be about and it's purpose.

You can argue a specific phrase is not inherently racist, that doesn't absolve the speaker for his intention with that phrase.

[Zarley]

Anyways, moving on from the racist discussion, I came across a Globe article that does a nice job illustrating to Canadians why criticism does not stick to Trump, and why he has a very real chance to win this election:

Originally Posted by The Globe and Mail

From Ford Nation to Trump Nation: ‘They are the same people’

But nobody in the U.S. seems interested in comparisons between Mr. Ford and Mr. Trump?

It’s not so much the comparison between Rob Ford or Doug Ford and Donald Trump. The big comparison is Ford Nation and Trump Nation. They are the same people. I am not trying to pretend that I am a great political pundit, but as soon as I saw Trump last year and heard the message and saw the type of people he was attracting, I just thought I know how this is going to play out.

Everybody was saying,‘Oh this guy doesn’t have a chance, he’s a buffoon.’ And I thought, I’ve heard all that before. I’ve even thought that before. And I was wrong. And people in Toronto were wrong. And people in the U.S. have been wrong for exactly the same reasons.

People, their brains, are still stuck in their conventional way of viewing politics. At the event I was at, it was a room full of people who were not voting for Donald Trump. But they still thought that the way to win the election was to denounce him.

And that is not in your view the way to do it? That won’t work?

No, that solidifies his base. And depending on what the basis of the criticism is … it just drives more support to him. I remember in Toronto I used to try to explain to the lefties on council, please tone down your anti-Ford rhetoric because it just gets him votes in Willowdale [Mr. Filion’s suburban Ward 23], where I was trying to not have him get any support. A lot of people thought that if the lefties on council are so against this guy, maybe I’ll vote for him.........

Full Article

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

We're arguing semantics here. Iowa is talking about reading between the lines, not explicit racist statements. You're trying to argue is not explicitly racist mini one disagrees with you. You can be pedantic to show you're intellectually above the fray, but it's an irrelevant position to take here. It's neither morally superior to argue racist dogwhistle language isn't racist, but it's irrelevant to discussion here

It isn't semantics, it's using terms accurately and precisely, particularly when the stakes are high. If it's a big deal for someone to be racist - and it is - we shouldn't be calling things racist when they don't really fall within the boundaries of the term*. Otherwise the term loses meaning. "Racist" is just about the worst thing you can call someone for most people short of allegations of actual criminal behaviour. It's not irrelevant to be careful to talk precisely about concepts that matter.

(*I realize that there is a broader sense of the term racism that Rube endorses (which I think boils down to "any statement that might be perceived as racist by the group in question, or any policy having the potential to disproportionately affect one racial group", regardless of the intent of the speaker. I just disagree with him.)

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

What good is gained by waging this battle? Far more harm is done by suggesting that Drumpf's comments re Mexican immigrants were not technically racist, which while both technically true and technically false, belies What we all know it be about and it's purpose.

Being right about something, being accurate rather than just fudging it for the "greater good" of smearing someone you don't like anyway, is a good in itself. It's the antithesis of intellectual laziness. What harm does the truth cause? None, unless someone is too dumb to understand and process nuance.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Well, to lighten the mood, here's a list of some things Republicans have said about Trump over the past few months.

“He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot. He doesn’t represent my party. He doesn’t represent the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for.” — Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina

“I don’t think this guy has any more core principles than a Kardashian marriage.” — Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska

“I would not vote for Trump, clearly. If there is any, any, any other choice, a living, breathing person with a pulse, I would be there.” — Mel Martinez, former Republican senator from Florida and former chairman of the Republican National Committee

“Hillary is preferable to Trump, just like malaria is preferable to Ebola. … If it’s Trump-Hillary with no serious third-party option in the fall, as hard as it is for me to believe I am actually writing these words, there is just no question: I’d take a Tums and cast my ballot for Hillary.” — Jamie Weinstein, senior writer, the Daily Caller, a conservative website

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/op...=tw-share&_r=0

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Bret Stephens of the WSJ really put it as succinctly as one could.

Originally Posted by Bret Stephens

I think that for the United States, Hillary Clinton, as awful as I find her, is a survivable event. I’m not so sure about Donald Drumpf.

[Senator Clay Davis]

A draft of Trump's speech tonight. Haven't read through it all, but the bits and pieces I have are predictably angry and full of ####.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-at-rnc-225974

[Shazam]

Doesn't matter who the hell is POTUS.

Fact of the matter is their three branch republic is a very resilient form of government.

No, no goddamned depression's gonna happen from Trump or whatever dope ends up in power. #### you just had Obama for 8 years, he actually gave a #### and he did maybe one thing that mattered.

Unless the ####ing Visigoths ransack the White House it is what it is.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Wait, Trump has drafts of his speeches? Like they're written down and everything? He doesn't just kind of get up there and say stuff? I'm confused.

[Knut]

The Conspiract nut Alex jones was seen as a special guest at the RNC. The guy that linked Bush to 911 etc.

What a circus

[KootenayFlamesFan]

So the crime and violence in the country will come to an end if he's elected.

And you just know he'll get some huge cheers for that line too.

So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully-crafted lies, and the media myths the Democrats are holding their convention next week.

But here, at our convention, there will be no lies. We will honor the American people with the truth, and nothing else.

hahahahahahahahaha

[GGG]

That's not a terrible speech. I wonder how fact checked it is. The language around those facts appears very specific so I suspect they are mostly true as opposed to blatant lies.

It's a toned down version of his rhetoric that might be attractive to independents. I'm interested into how far he goes off the script.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I think it is relevant to the discussion here, certainly more relevant than some woman inadvertently hailing Hitler. The types of simplistic analyses that you and Iowa are advocating are contributing to the intellectually vacuous nature of U.S. politics. Statements such as "Trump is a racist," "Hilary is a criminal," "Trump is a fascist," etc. are over-simplifications of important issues this election. But rather than appealing to the rational person, these statements represent emotional appeals to the average dolt.

Having said that, it's tough to assign blame for what is occurring. I'd say the lack of legitimate news media, the adversarial nature of an entrenched two party system, and the weak education system in the States are the primary contributing factors to the situation we are in.

Well, this is the first time I've been called "intellectually vacuous" in a while. But I am sorry: when someone says "black people are lazy", it isn't vacuous to say they are a racist. It's accurate. If you were talking about Mitt Romney (who also got accused, much more unfairly, of racism in 2012) you would have a point.

But your point here rests on a distinction around what "race" is rather than one around what "racism" is--and when it comes to describing someone's attitudes toward and tendency to judge other human beings, that just isn't a relevant distinction. There is more than one way to be intellectually vacuous: one of those ways is to insist on foolishly semantic distinctions between identical behaviours: such as by saying Bob, who hates black people is a racist, while Bill, who hates muslims and Mexicans, is something else.

[GirlySports]

A look back 2015-08-07 (after first debate)