The New American Politics thread

[Buster]

I'm hesitant to post an article by Coulter, because I'm not a big fan...but she did a great job outlining the problem of identity politics, and victim politics associated with the Khan thing. Most of that outrage of Khan was fake outrage, anyway, I think.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/20...html#read_more

...Democrats find victims to make their arguments for them, pre-empting counter-argument by droning on about the suffering of their victim-spokesperson. Alternative opinions must be preceded by proof that the speaker has "sacrificed" more than someone who lost a child, a husband, or whatever.

Yes, a candidate for president of the United States is supposed to be prohibited from discussing a dangerous immigration program because Khan's son was one of fourteen (14!) Muslim servicemen killed by other Muslims in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .... If you think that doesn't make any sense, keep your yap shut, unless you lost a child in Iraq, too .... Muslim troops accounted for 0.2 percent of all U.S. troop deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Southerners accounted for 38 percent of those killed in Iraq and 47 percent in Afghanistan.
....

But as long as they brought it up, if only people who lost children in our wars may discuss public policy, then only they should vote, not only on how many more Muslim immigrants this country needs, but on all government policies. What has Chuck Todd sacrificed? Have any current members of The New York Times editorial board ever lost a son in war? (Fighting on the American side.)

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Oh man. You are going to get pilloried for even mentioning Coulter as anything other than a demon from hell. Which, to be fair, she is awful... If her schtick weren't almost entirely a cynical act to drum up attention and make money from being shocking she'd be one of the worst people on Earth.

That said, I don't feel like reading her article, but just looking at the bits you quoted, I agree somewhat with the first paragraph - that is symptomatic of the rise of victimhood culture, but on the other hand it's not like exploiting grieving parents is a new tactic or exclusive to the left. I don't care at all about the stats in the second (who gives a damn if "southerners" were 38% of Iraq casualties; what does that have to do with anything). I think the third paragraph is a straw man.

[Thor]

You mean how the RNC had the mother who lost her son in Benghazi? Also yeah, you should hesitate to post anything by Coulter, she's a nut.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Oh man. You are going to get pilloried for even mentioning Coulter as anything other than a demon from hell. Which, to be fair, she is awful... If her schtick weren't almost entirely a cynical act to drum up attention and make money from being shocking she'd be one of the worst people on Earth.

That said, I don't feel like reading her article, but just looking at the bits you quoted, I agree somewhat with the first paragraph - that is symptomatic of the rise of victimhood culture, but on the other hand it's not like exploiting grieving parents is a new tactic or exclusive to the left. I don't care at all about the stats in the second (who gives a damn if "southerners" were 38% of Iraq casualties; what does that have to do with anything). I think the third paragraph is a straw man.

Although her argument would never be applied to the Right (by her), it is valid there too. (Although I think in general, it's a technique employed by the left more regularly.)

Those stats do matter, if you are attempting to play identity politics. I don't like identity politics, so I would never use such statistics. I would also put a Muslim up on stage just because they are a Muslim. So there's that.

And it is not a strawman. It is a specific discussion of the hypocrisy she is trying to articulate.

FWIW, I will read anything from anyone at any time, regardless of their name. As long as the point is interesting, and the topic is interesting.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Thor

You mean how the RNC had the mother who lost her son in Benghazi? Also yeah, you should hesitate to post anything by Coulter, she's a nut.

The mother that the RNC put up there might have been right or wrong. She was definitely put up there to "exploit the grieving mother".

But she wasn't put up there because she was white or Christian - at least overtly. The RNC was being exploitative, but they were not openly playing off identify politics.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that only people who have lost children in wars may discuss public policy. That's the straw man I'm referring to.

Anyway here is a presumably much better article from yesterday on basically the same general topic. http://quillette.com/2016/08/04/libe...ecting-people/

[White Out 403]

The Khans were perfectly onside. Trump has advertised wanting to ban muslims. Bringing on a Muslim family who sacrificed their son for their new country by way of his service was a great strategy and ethically fine. It's a direct rebuke of a Trump plank.

On the other hand Clinton has been found not guilty of any wrong doing in Benghazi after a thousand investigations (nearly). The Trump and RNC people were slinging mud trying to muck things up by having a victim of the Benghazi attack at the RNC. It wasn't a rebuttal to a Clinton position in any way shape or form, or, had anything to do with Trump. It was dirty politics using a grieving family. Disgusting.

The difference is obvious.

[ResAlien]

In a stunning about face Donnie has owned up to never seeing a video of cash being delivered to Iran. Thus marks the first time in this election that he has admitted to lying.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think anyone is suggesting that only people who have lost children in wars may discuss public policy. That's the straw man I'm referring to.

Mr. Khan did. Explicitly so.

Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future.... You have sacrificed nothing and no one.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

In a stunning about face Donnie has owned up to never seeing a video of cash being delivered to Iran. Thus marks the first time in this election that he has admitted to lying.

Which will translate to his base that he's the most honest guy ever.

[troutman]

I don't see where he admitted to lying - only being mistaken.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The Khans were perfectly onside. Trump has advertised wanting to ban muslims. Bringing on a Muslim family who sacrificed their son for their new country by way of his service was a great strategy and ethically fine. It's a direct rebuke of a Trump plank.

On the other hand Clinton has been found not guilty of any wrong doing in Benghazi after a thousand investigations (nearly). The Trump and RNC people were slinging mud trying to muck things up by having a victim of the Benghazi attack at the RNC. It wasn't a rebuttal to a Clinton position in any way shape or form, or, had anything to do with Trump. It was dirty politics using a grieving family. Disgusting.

The difference is obvious.

That may be so.

But the Khans were up on stage because they were Muslims and, frankly, reflected some Muslim stereotypes in terms of skin color, accent, etc.

The RNC mom wasn't on stage because she was white. (Although they still might have picked a white person for subconscious reasons.)

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't see where he admitted to lying - only being mistaken.

Same difference, sorry for slight editorializing on my part. I shall endeavour to only report from here on out. Don't go getting all buster on me

This is the first time he has even admitted to being mistaken about anything. Maybe a softening to his public persona to try and recover by the time the election rolls around?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Buster

And it is not a strawman. It is a specific discussion of the hypocrisy she is trying to articulate.

if only people who lost children in our wars may discuss public policy,

This statement right here is about as textbook definition strawman as you could ever get. Nobody, from either left or right, has said that that only people who lost children in wars may discuss public policy, but Coulter's putting it out there as though that premise is the crux of the argument she's trying to rebut.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by octothorp

This statement right here is about as textbook definition strawman as you could ever get. Nobody, from either left or right, has said that that only people who lost children in wars may discuss public policy, but Coulter's putting it out there as though that premise is the crux of the argument she's trying to rebut.

Mr. Khan said in his speech that Trump should not be given the right to carry us into the future, and he cited that Trump had not sacrificed anything.

Either Trump's "sacrifice" is important, or it is not. Unless you are suggesting that Trump's detractors are only applying it to Trump and/or the presidency. Which makes no sense.

The argument here is clear, and Coulter is right: anti-Trumpers are suggesting that sacrifice is an important qualification for public office. It is a nonsense argument by them, and it is a nonsense argument by Khan. It formed the foundation for Khan's entire speech.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Buster

That may be so.

But the Khans were up on stage because they were Muslims and, frankly, reflected some Muslim stereotypes in terms of skin color, accent, etc.

The RNC mom wasn't on stage because she was white. (Although they still might have picked a white person for subconscious reasons.)

Two points, if Trump is bringing up banning Muslims it's him that's engaging in identity politics, the Kahns don't get anywhere near the stage if Trump doesn't make banning Muslims a plank of his campaign, it's the job of the Dems to present arguements against his, it's hardly their fault that his policies are so indefensible or that the Khans made him look like the moron he is, that was just happy coincidence.

Secondly, the GOP is essentially a white party, virtually everyone on their stage was white, it's all they've got.

[PsYcNeT]

You guys are getting baited into the (patent pending) Buster Semantics Trap™ again.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Buster

That may be so.

But the Khans were up on stage because they were Muslims and, frankly, reflected some Muslim stereotypes in terms of skin color, accent, etc.

The RNC mom wasn't on stage because she was white. (Although they still might have picked a white person for subconscious reasons.)

Yes the Khans were on stage because they're Muslim, and their family sacrificed greatly for America. That's the point, it was a direct rebuke of a Trump position on Muslims.

I don't even get how this is a point of contention.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Buster

Mr. Khan said in his speech that Trump should not be given the right to carry us into the future, and he cited that Trump had not sacrificed anything.

Either Trump's "sacrifice" is important, or it is not. Unless you are suggesting that Trump's detractors are only applying it to Trump and/or the presidency. Which makes no sense.

The argument here is clear, and Coulter is right: anti-Trumpers are suggesting that sacrifice is an important qualification for public office. It is a nonsense argument by them, and it is a nonsense argument by Khan. It formed the foundation for Khan's entire speech.

Buster is such a champion wordsaladsmith, its truly mind boggling. That combined with his assertion about Hillary being a liar, crook and corrupt makes this semantic gymnastic all the more hilarious.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Buster

Mr. Khan said in his speech that Trump should not be given the right to carry us into the future, and he cited that Trump had not sacrificed anything.

Either Trump's "sacrifice" is important, or it is not. Unless you are suggesting that Trump's detractors are only applying it to Trump and/or the presidency. Which makes no sense.

The argument here is clear, and Coulter is right: anti-Trumpers are suggesting that sacrifice is an important qualification for public office. It is a nonsense argument by them, and it is a nonsense argument by Khan. It formed the foundation for Khan's entire speech.

Okay, now it's you that's making strawmans. The line about Trump asking Americans to trust him with their future was immediately followed by the accusation that Trump had not read the constitution. Which may or may not be accurate, but I think it's totally reasonable to suggest that anyone who has not read the constitution would be unfit for the office of president.
Taken as a whole, the speech suggests that Trump's lack of empathy for other races and faiths in America (which is the complaint of the speech), is the result of a) an unfamiliarity with the constitution, b) an lack of interest in educating himself about others who have made sacrifices for America, and c) no personal sacrifice. It's a solid, coherent, if somewhat emotional argument. To reduce it to 'no personal sacrifice = unfit for office' is absolutely a strawman and a desperate attempt by the right to miscast the argument and deflect the backlash.