The New American Politics thread

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Can you provide some examples of this alleged hand-wringing? I haven't seen any.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=8669

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Buster

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=8669

I'm not entirely sure you understand what hand wringing means. Care to engage in an overly verbose and ultimately fruitless discussion about it?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by jammies

I eagerly await Buster's dissertation on why it's wrong to call Hillary a criminal when she hasn't actually been convicted of any crime. As long as we are raising the level of political discourse on a tide of semantics, why stop at just one example?

Yes Buster, please educate us on this issue.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Buster

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=8669

Incredible. You raised that silly issue. Any hand-wringing over semantic distinctions between race, origin, ethnicity and religion was on your part entirely.

[Izzle]

I feel Buster really thinks Dorito Mussolini is clever enough to sidestep outright labels such as 'racist'. At least, he seems to err on the side of Cheeto Jesus. Sad!

[Flash Walken]

Is it less morally reprehensible to pander to racists for power than it is to actually be a racist?

Say I run a company, and I only hire members of the KKK. If I've never been to a klan meeting, never pledged support to the klan and never burned a cross and or terrorized a black family, do I get to claim some kind of moral high-ground?

Not all GOP voters are racist, but most american racists are GOP voters.

If racial equality is even a top 10 priority for you, it would be incongruent to run under the GOP banner.

Who cares if trump is personally a racist or not, he's willing to manipulate racists to gain power which is in my opinion worse than just being an ignorant racist running on racist policies.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Yes Buster, please educate us on this issue.

Are you asking for my opinion on the issue of Hilary's email server?

Here's what the facts are, as far as I know them from the FBI's statements and other reporting:

- Hillary ran an email server in a private location, using private devices in a way contrary to State Department regulations.

- Her story and the FBI's investigation differ in their accounts of the facts (exposure of sensitive material, number of devices used among other things).

- Hillary will not be pursued by the FBI for criminal charges.


Here's my take on the situation:

- Given the statements of the FBI, I think they would probably have pursued some sort of charges against other people in other circumstances given similar transgressions.

- The FBI was in a no-win situation: they realized that pursuing the matter would likely have them choosing the next president. Not pursuing charges would make them look like they are treating Hilary with a light hand. I think they took the right approach, and will let the election act as a court of public opinion.

- I dont see why Hillary would run an email server like she did. I can't think of any good reasons to do so.

[longsuffering]

Not what I was looking for.

To be clear, the question is why don't you rail on about Trump et al continually referring to Hillary as a crook despite the fact she has never been convicted of a crime.

Semantics matter, right?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

[Flash Walken]

Buster, have you read the first post in this thread?

It's about how you don't have to say explicitly racist things to be accurately judged as a racist or bigot. It's how the GOP political establishment has openly operated for 50 years.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Not what I was looking for.

To be clear, the question is why don't you rail on about Trump et al continually referring to Hillary as a crook despite the fact she has never been convicted of a crime.

Semantics matter, right?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

Meh, he's reached the obvious and boring stage of trolling. Anyhow, moving on I'm quite hopeful that Hillary's speech tonight will be good. I am slightly concerned though that the diehard Bernie fans will interrupt her with chants like some tried to do with the president last night.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Buster

It should be obvious that my effort here is to hold the discussion to account, much more than it is to defend Trump's policies.

Is it informative to you, to have the dominant conversation in the election be:

- A bunch of people yelling "RACIST!"
- A bunch of people yelling "CROOK!:

And seeing who can shout the other one down most loudly?

Do you not see the irony in complaining about Trump's lack of policy discussion on important topics, and then firehosing the term "RACIST" all over the place? It's all the same garbage.

There are real discussions to be had about how to handle immigration issues with respect to Mexico. There are real discussions to be had about how to handle the spread of Islam, and how that might impact our immigration policy. Sometimes those discussions might involve uncomfortable truths and distasteful policy suggestions. At that point we can toss them based on lack of merit. (Although it is worth noting that Trump's policy suggestion on handling Islam, abhorrent as it is, is also the ONLY policy suggestion on the table.)

When you apply the word "racist", in a disingenuous interpretation of his "policy" suggestion, then you are throwing a hand grenade into the room where reasonable people are trying to have a discussion on the actual stupidity of the actual policy.

You were the one to bring up the racist talk, so talk about disingenuous. I characterize Trump as a self-aggrandizing narcissist, whose greatest talent is self-promotion. I don't need to enter into the racist/xenophobe discussion in order to disqualify him as a candidate.

But sure, let's talk about policies.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Is it less morally reprehensible to pander to racists for power than it is to actually be a racist?

Say I run a company, and I only hire members of the KKK. If I've never been to a klan meeting, never pledged support to the klan and never burned a cross and or terrorized a black family, do I get to claim some kind of moral high-ground?

Not all GOP voters are racist, but most american racists are GOP voters.

If racial equality is even a top 10 priority for you, it would be incongruent to run under the GOP banner.

Who cares if trump is personally a racist or not, he's willing to manipulate racists to gain power which is in my opinion worse than just being an ignorant racist running on racist policies.

I think this is a reasonable argument. But as I said, distasteful dog whistles and pandering to the extreme aspects of your base is something that both the Democrats and the Republicans do.

I would caution against suggesting that "most racists are GOP voters." Racism can come in many forms, not just the hood wearing white trash variety. The Black Lives Matter movement is clearly racist, in the sense that they are making race a central issue of their platform. And I don't think those guys are republican voters.

The Trump is Racist card is itself a dog whistle: it's designed to create the impression that because "Trump is racist" that voting for him is also racist, ergo all GOP voters are racist. Which clearly isn't the case. No reasonable argument can be made that all of those who support Trump in the polls are racists.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Buster

I think this is a reasonable argument. But as I said, distasteful dog whistles and pandering to the extreme aspects of your base is something that both the Democrats and the Republicans do.

No it isn't.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Not what I was looking for.

To be clear, the question is why don't you rail on about Trump et al continually referring to Hillary as a crook despite the fact she has never been convicted of a crime.

Semantics matter, right?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

I have:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=8668

Is it informative to you, to have the dominant conversation in the election be:

- A bunch of people yelling "RACIST!"
- A bunch of people yelling "CROOK!:

Again, my point is less to defend Trump, most of his policies are stupid.

My point was to complain about the discussion being reduced to people yelling "Racist", as if they are making a policy point - all based on a false attribution about comments on Mexico and Islam.

If the conversation here were dominated by a bunch of Trump supporters yelling "CROOK" every second post, I'd be complaining those people too.

(Although I disagree with the premise of your question that the Hillary email issue is more or less the same as the Trump racism issue. They are very different. Which I think goes without saying. Although anti-Hillary and anti-Trump rhetoric follows largely the same simpleton pattern.)

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

You were the one to bring up the racist talk, so talk about disingenuous. I characterize Trump as a self-aggrandizing narcissist, whose greatest talent is self-promotion. I don't need to enter into the racist/xenophobe discussion in order to disqualify him as a candidate.

But sure, let's talk about policies.

No, I was simply pointing out that "Mexico" and "Islam" are a country and a religion that are both open to people of all races, so to use them as evidence for racism is illogical.

then the Bought The Narrative folks got all grumpy at me poking holes in their happy place.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Pffff... you're doing it wrong.

The correct way to pedantically address that question is, "actually, in order to meet the definition of the word "criminal", you only have to have intentionally committed the act described in the relevant provision of the penal statute. Whether or not you've been convicted is immaterial. So from that perspective, one could argue that Hillary is or isn't a criminal, depending on what you think she did and what the law requires."

[Drak]

Anecdotes be damned, I know a number of republican voters. Family members and friends of the family on my wife's side. I've attended several gatherings and family reunions with these folks. Yes this is my own personal experience with a very small slice of the pie, but the blatant racism and ignorance is there, plain as day. In fact, I no longer attend family reunions because I simply can't sit around listening to the garbage spewed forth around the picnic table. I've tried to engage in civil political discourse, but I honestly feel threatened after offering my take. Not physically threatened, just mentally stressed and anxious from all the loud talk, shouting and insults - not to mention the assault on my intelligence. Two family members of my wife's even "joke" about lining up liberals and shooting them. Those terrible Mexicans, the "illegals" and the use of the N word is part of their ignorant vernacular. Obama is a Muslim that wasn't born in America - The Clintons belong in jail. Hard to stomach a nice steak with a side of potato salad constantly listening to a barrage of hateful spew.

[Izzle]

I say lets chalk this up to the Dunning-Kruger effect and get back on topic.

I am most interested to see the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's speech introducing Hillary and Ivanka's speech introducing Orange Folds. The funny thing is, I suspect Chelsea might echo (not copy) what Ivanka said wrt fighting for equal pay, but will probably go into detail about how Hillary will go about achieving it. Or perhaps Hillary will go into it herself.

Furthermore, I am kind of expecting a let down after the awesomness which was yesterday. Hillary probably will focus on policies more rather than attack Turnip.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Pffff... you're doing it wrong.

The correct way to pedantically address that question is, "actually, in order to meet the definition of the word "criminal", you only have to have intentionally committed the act described in the relevant provision of the penal statute. Whether or not you've been convicted is immaterial. So from that perspective, one could argue that Hillary is or isn't a criminal, depending on what you think she did and what the law requires."

haha, that's awesome.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Izzle

I say lets chalk this up to the Dunning-Kruger effect and get back on topic.

I am most interested to see the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's speech introducing Hillary and Ivanka's speech introducing Orange Folds. The funny thing is, I suspect Chelsea might echo (not copy) what Ivanka said wrt fighting for equal pay, but will probably go into detail about how Hillary will go about achieving it. Or perhaps Hillary will go into it herself.

Furthermore, I am kind of expecting a let down after the awesomness which was yesterday. Hillary probably will focus on policies more rather than attack Turnip.

A letdown is inevitable, arguably the greatest public speaker to ever inhabit the White House knocked it out of the park last night. That's a hard act to follow for the nation's greatest speakers let alone Hillary. It would make sense for Hillary to focus on policy and accomplishments and keep the attacks to a minimum. I hope she also only refers to him as "my opponent" to minimize his name recognition. That will also have the added bonus of infuriating the GOP candidate.