The New American Politics thread

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Did Trump actually call for Russia to find missing emails? Oh boy...what a maroon.

Unbelievable. First time I can recall a high level political figure actively calling for a foreign power to engage in espionage against his own country.

Originally Posted by GGG

I like how the democrats tonight tried to appropriate Regan, Roosevelt, and Lincoln and declare how democrats make up real American values.

Listened to Obama's speech and unless I misheard him, he did acknowledge Lincoln as a Republican. Still a pretty good speech, and I'm in awe as to how someone can go on for that amount of time and sound as good at the end as they did at the beginning. He's a great speaker.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

It's okay everyone, Trump was just kidding. And he never lies, so he must be telling the truth.

Donald Trump said Thursday morning that he was only kidding when he appeared to encourage Russian intelligence agencies to find Hillary Clinton's thousands of deleted emails.

"Of course I'm being sarcastic," Trump said in a Fox News interview that aired the day after his comments sparked a national furor. "You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Convention."

Trump's supporters tried to give the Republican presidential nominee some cover Thursday morning.

"He was joking around," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump surrogate, said on CNN's "New Day." "If he tells you I'm joking, you take him at his word."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politi...tic/index.html

[automaton 3]

Trump is a lunatic. At first I was hoping it was an act, but I am really wondering if he is firing on all cylinders.

He is following the script that he said he would though - say outrageous things to stay on top of the news cycle. I read somewhere that Clinton has outspent him 40-1 so far.

[Senator Clay Davis]

From the same interview with one of the Fox Morning dunces. One of my favorite Trump attempts at dodging an accusation: I follow federal law, so I couldn't have been mocking that disabled guy.

[GirlySports]

will be interesting see tonight. Hillary has to make herself likable. It's tough because she's not a naturally extroverted speaking person.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

From the same interview with one of the Fox Morning dunces. One of my favorite Trump attempts at dodging an accusation: I follow federal law, so I couldn't have been mocking that disabled guy.

Damn, what is he trying to say????

At one point, I thought I re-read the same line, but no.... He really repeated himself, unnecessarily.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think it's
In the 40-50 range with lots of policy. It will be disappointing compared to Biden, Bloomberg, Bill; and the Obamas but will be effective in outlying the vision of America to address the America is on the wrong track numbers.

Sounds about right... although it's pretty much a given that it won't compare to Bill or Obama. I'm not sure there is anyone in the english speaking world that can deliver a better political speech then those two so it would be a bit of an unfair expectation for her to top those two.

She's got a lot of things to cover:

1: Acknowledgements: Bill, Chelsea, The Obama's, Kaine, Sanders
2: Reference to the historical nature of her candidacy (first woman candidate)
3: Takedowns on Trump (Both by name and more commonly by policy)
4: Vision of the future
5: Red Meat for the base
6: Appeals to moderate Republicans/Republican voting independents

#6 was on full display last night...

Jay Cost ‏@JayCostTWS 11h11 hours ago
Jay Cost Retweeted Rich Lowry
In fairness, we've offered it all in a fire sale. They'd be fools not to grab it.
Rich Lowry @RichLowry
American exceptionalism and greatness, shining city on hill, founding documents, etc--they're trying to take all our stuff

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Damn, what is he trying to say????

At one point, I thought I re-read the same line, but no.... He really repeated himself, unnecessarily.

He's trying to say because he's spent millions of dollars making his buildings compliant to federal regulations, he couldn't mock the disable, because he spends millions on them. I also hope we find out in the coming days he was guilty of multiple violations and was forced to make some of his buildings compliant.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Obama had an extended period where he had both the House AND 60 Dems in the Senate. Could have done anything with those numbers. Should have done more, once the midterms happened that was that. So while yes he was obstructed, he also blew his window to get real things done too.

To be fair, he had to deal with Cougar nosediving into the indian ocean and played the first 6 months of his presidency hauling back on the joystick to pull out of the economic nosedive.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by New Era

I agree. I don't see you defending his policies or history, just his behaviors. I don't see you doing so because you actually believe in the guy either. All I see is someone who is doing so because so many people dislike the guy. You aren't doing it because of some actual belief in the guy, you are doing it because it gets a rise out of people. I think you get off on stirring it up and this is an opportunity for you to do so by defending the indefensible.
....
People are no actively searching for content that supports their preconception of Trump being a racist. I don't see anyone going out of their way to find obscure passages where Trump has said anything ridiculous.
....
You're seriously going to try and play the reduction-of-discourse card when you are the intentionally being obtuse and repetitive on this subject?
Really? Then how about trying to discuss an actual policy position ...

In order:

- I don't make statements to get a rise out of people. I'm just interested in people being accurate. My perception is that people enjoy a cozy narrative, that makes them feel better, and they really dislike it when you poke holes in that narrative and ask them to back up their points. I'm not concerned by their cognitive dissonance. I don't feel like a provocateur so much as a public defender. I don't much like Trump, but I think we have a responsibility to try to maintain accuracy.

- People ARE actively trying to search for obscure passages and content. The entire thing is people jumping to a conclusion based on their own preconceptions. In my experience, people really don't like being challenged when they happens, and this case is no different. When Trump made the comments about Mexicans and Muslims, everybody's hair lit on fire, and people ran around calling him a racist. I'm not sure why I'm the only one here who thought to go back and look at what he actually said, rather than just joining the crowd in that particular attribution.

- The reduction of discourse card is exactly what I am pointing out here. And despite people thinking it's repetitive or whatever, I think it's actually incredibly important. The discussion here is a case-in-point. Attributing the racist label to Trump is a big charge. It's an inflammatory word, and I think we ought to be careful running around using it like a flame-thrower. The problem with it is this: if you say Trump is a racist, then you are saying to Trump supporters that they are supporting a racist, which is an attempt at guilt by association. It's a way to hector people, and shut down actual conversation on the actual policy he is suggesting. It's the same "shout down" bullying technique that the left uses regularly to impair discourse. In that way, running around shouting "Trump is Racist" might be considered more divisive than the actual policy, which you can impugn quite easily based on its lack of merit.

Oh, and xenophobe and racist are two different things. Language matters.

[Flash Walken]

What I want to know is, why weren't Bush, Cheney and Colin Powell at the RNC giving speeches about the greatness of the republican platform?

Whoops.

[dobbles]

Was listening to NPR taking my son to school this morning and they had a segment about Hilary giving the first ever student speech at her Wellesley commencement in 1969. What I found interesting is that there was a speaker before her who was the first ever popularly elected black senator. Apparently in his remarks he advocated incremental change and not protesting. Hilary disagreed and started off her speech with some unscripted remarks. They played the audio of her remarks and I thought she had a really good flow. I found that odd as I feel like she is such a robotic speaker now. Someone that doesn't have the charisma and improvisation that we have seen by so many others this week.

Just thought it was interesting. Here is a link to the story:
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/28/486799...-the-spotlight

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Buster

In order:

- I don't make statements to get a rise out of people. I'm just interested in people being accurate. My perception is that people enjoy a cozy narrative, that makes them feel better, and they really dislike it when you poke holes in that narrative and ask them to back up their points. I'm not concerned by their cognitive dissonance. I don't feel like a provocateur so much as a public defender. I don't much like Trump, but I think we have a responsibility to try to maintain accuracy.

- People ARE actively trying to search for obscure passages and content. The entire thing is people jumping to a conclusion based on their own preconceptions. In my experience, people really don't like being challenged when they happens, and this case is no different. When Trump made the comments about Mexicans and Muslims, everybody's hair lit on fire, and people ran around calling him a racist. I'm not sure why I'm the only one here who thought to go back and look at what he actually said, rather than just joining the crowd in that particular attribution.

- The reduction of discourse card is exactly what I am pointing out here. And despite people thinking it's repetitive or whatever, I think it's actually incredibly important. The discussion here is a case-in-point. Attributing the racist label to Trump is a big charge. It's an inflammatory word, and I think we ought to be careful running around using it like a flame-thrower. The problem with it is this: if you say Trump is a racist, then you are saying to Trump supporters that they are supporting a racist, which is an attempt at guilt by association. It's a way to hector people, and shut down actual conversation on the actual policy he is suggesting. It's the same "shout down" bullying technique that the left uses regularly to impair discourse. In that way, running around shouting "Trump is Racist" might be considered more divisive than the actual policy, which you can impugn quite easily based on its lack of merit.

Oh, and xenophobe and racist are two different things. Language matters.

You are one of those guys who insists there are only three anthropological races, aren't you?

[Bunk]

I thought an interesting argument:

Why I'm voting for Trump and you should too
by La Montaña Rusa

https://medium.com/@lamontanarusa/wh...953#.4ivtqnhn5

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Buster

Oh, and xenophobe and racist are two different things. Language matters.

Good point.

Just this morning, my wife asked me to check if her keys were under the sofa.

But I corrected her: it's a chesterfield.

We had a big fight, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. And it's important, because language matters.

She still hasn't found her keys though.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Buster

In order:

- bad excuse for trolling and getting called out on it.

- Bad excuse for failing to deflect your failings onto others.

- Bad excuse for poor rhetorical performance.

Oh, and xenophobe and racist are two different things. Language matters.

Racism and xenophobia are directly related. One is precipitous or a direct result of the other, hence being a synonym and used in common parlance as such. Again, you are trying to toss in semantics as an argument for your poor behavior, and worse cognitive gymnastics to support your claims, even when you routinely fail the semantic test in your posts. Comprehension matters.

[troutman]

Michael Che: "these white girl Bernie supporters are crying like Dave Matthews just sang Crash into Me"

[Buster]

Originally Posted by New Era

Racism and xenophobia are directly related. One is precipitous or a direct result of the other, hence being a synonym and used in common parlance as such. Again, you are trying to toss in semantics as an argument for your poor behavior, and worse cognitive gymnastics to support your claims, even when you routinely fail the semantic test in your posts. Comprehension matters.

You're just making stuff up now. Which really proves my point. Your laundry list of synonyms for racism is....not a laundry list of synonyms for racism. It's important to understand the deliberately inflammatory nature of a world like "racist". If you need to be so mushy and imprecise with your labels, just to justify your inflammatory claims, then you are arguing against yourself. Your arguments always boils down to some version of: "What he REALLY meant was..."

No reasonable person accepts this type of reasoning on such an important topic. I'm disappointed that so many people fell into the trap of the narrative, but I'm not surprised.

(Incidentally, this type of reasoning is the entire basis for so much of the nonsense out of the Left regarding "intersectionality" and other pointless terms.)

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I thought an interesting argument:

Why I'm voting for Trump and you should too
by La Montaña Rusa

https://medium.com/@lamontanarusa/wh...953#.4ivtqnhn5

Originally Posted by troutman

Michael Che: "these white girl Bernie supporters are crying like Dave Matthews just sang Crash into Me"

so unnecessary

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

so unnecessary

Unnecessary, but ultimately unimportant.

What was important, and should have more weight were Barack's speech, Biden's speech, Tim's, Bloomberg, etc.