Why would anyone want to vote for Hilary Clinton?

[psychoslice]

Here in Australia we see this whole thing as one big circus, and most here would hate to see Trump winning, whatever wars America gets involved in, we are always draged into it.

 

[metis]

Good for you, I don't care, but you've barely cited anything, let alone demonstrate that Trump is a racist. So either you're lying or you just flat out didn't understand anything and jumped to conclusions. You're quite ignorant of pretty much everything surrounding this issue including the definitions of words like racist and bigot.

Ya, and I guess that's why I taught political science for around 25 years.

You simply have nothing to offer except ignorance on the subject, so to make certain I don't waste any more time, it's time to use my ignore option.

 

[fantome profane]

Well we were talking about Trump being racist, so how am I missing the point? Are you saying a wall is divisive? It is divisive but it isn't racist.

Trump has tailored his campaign from the beginning to appeal to raciest voters. This is not new to the republican party, they have been doing this for decades and have admitted to such. But Trump has just done it with less subtlety than any other recent Presidential nominee.

 

[serp777]

Ya, and I guess that's why I taught political science for around 25 years.

You simply have nothing to offer except ignorance on the subject, so to make certain I don't waste any more time, it's time to use my ignore option.

Argument from authority. You've taught 25 years worth of nonsense including education on how to be as biased as possible and use the worst sources you can. You've clearly got nothing to offer. I'll be glad if you don't respond anymore.

 

[metis]

Trump has tailored his campaign from the beginning to appeal to raciest voters. This is not new to the republican party, they have been doing this for decades and have admitted to such. But Trump has just done it with less subtlety than any other recent Presidential nominee.

Absolutely, and remember he at first refused to denounce David Duke's support as well as that from a white-supremacy group.

 

[serp777]

Trump has tailored his campaign from the beginning to appeal to raciest voters. This is not new to the republican party, they have been doing this for decades and have admitted to such. But Trump has just done it with less subtlety than any other recent Presidential nominee.

I personally haven't seen or heard trump say anything racist. I've never heard him say something like "All mexicans are rapists and criminals because they have brown skin", or "white people are clearly superior". he also denounced the white supremacists:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...y_thats_done_more_for_equality_as_i_have.html

 

[fantome profane]

I personally haven't seen or heard trump say anything racist. I've never heard him say something like "All mexicans are rapists and criminals because they have brown skin", or "white people are clearly superior".

I didn't say he did. I said he tailored his campaign to appeal to raciest. Do you see the difference?

When he referred to Mexicans as rapists, I think that was a racist statement, but even if you disagree you must be able to see how that statement would appeal to racist voters. When he called for a ban of Muslims I think that was racist, I know you disagree. But you must be able to see how the ban on Muslims appealed to racist voters. And as metis pointed out above he was slow to denounce David Duke. Why? Not because like he said he had never heard of David Duke, that was an obvious lie. But the truth is that he didn't want to offend racist voters.

I say it again - Donald Trump has tailored his campaign from the beginning to appeal to racist voters.

 

[metis]

I didn't say he did. I said he tailored his campaign to appeal to raciest. Do you see the difference?

When he referred to Mexicans as rapists, I think that was a racist statement, but even if you disagree you must be able to see how that statement would appeal to racist voters. When he called for a ban of Muslims I think that was racist, I know you disagree. But you must be able to see how the ban on Muslims appealed to racist voters. And as metis pointed out above he was slow to denounce David Duke. Why? Not because like he said he had never heard of David Duke, that was an obvious lie. But the truth is that he didn't want to offend racist voters.

I say it again - Donald Trump has tailored his campaign from the beginning to appeal to racist voters.

Yes, and it's a carry-over, I believe, of the "Southern strategy" used by Nixon to court the white Southern vote that was successful. Today, and this fits into what you say above, the highest poll numbers demographically that support Trump are white, lower-education, male voters.

 

[look3467]

Corruption unprecedented!

Eph_6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The spirit........of evil dwells in: principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness in.........high places.

"What difference at this point does it make" between the two?

Blessings, AJ

 

[serp777]

I didn't say he did. I said he tailored his campaign to appeal to raciest. Do you see the difference?

When he referred to Mexicans as rapists, I think that was a racist statement, but even if you disagree you must be able to see how that statement would appeal to racist voters. When he called for a ban of Muslims I think that was racist, I know you disagree. But you must be able to see how the ban on Muslims appealed to racist voters. And as metis pointed out above he was slow to denounce David Duke. Why? Not because like he said he had never heard of David Duke, that was an obvious lie. But the truth is that he didn't want to offend racist voters.

I say it again - Donald Trump has tailored his campaign from the beginning to appeal to racist voters.

I didn't say he did. I said he tailored his campaign to appeal to raciest. Do you see the difference?

When he referred to Mexicans as rapists, I think that was a racist statement, but even if you disagree you must be able to see how that statement would appeal to racist voters. When he called for a ban of Muslims I think that was racist, I know you disagree. But you must be able to see how the ban on Muslims appealed to racist voters. And as metis pointed out above he was slow to denounce David Duke. Why? Not because like he said he had never heard of David Duke, that was an obvious lie. But the truth is that he didn't want to offend racist voters.

I say it again - Donald Trump has tailored his campaign from the beginning to appeal to racist voters.

I said he tailored his campaign to appeal to raciest. Do you see the difference?

If you think he tailors his campaign to appeal to racist voters then you probably think he is a racist. Furthermore, you first responded to my post which sad "Well we were talking about Trump being racist, so how am I missing the point? ", which doesn't really have anything to do with appealing to racist voters or not.

When he referred to Mexicans as rapists, I think that was a racist statement, but even if you disagree you must be able to see how that statement would appeal to racist voters

He referred to a portion of illegal mexican immigrants as rapists. Thats a huge difference from referring to Mexicans in general as rapists. Also, Mexicans aren't a race--even if he did say all Mexicans were rapists, then that still isn't technically racist because it could include a white Mexican. Its creating a faulty stereotype and is horribly prejudiced for sure for sure, but in order to be racist he would have had to say something like "black people are rapists".

A Race is defined as "a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.[1][2][3][4][5][6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Racism is therefore basing criticisms and judgments on the physical characteristics of a group of people, which is most notably skin color since humans tend to have other similar characteristics.

Being Mexican isn't a physical characteristic. It therefore can't be racist. people have been misusing the word racist throughout this entire thread and metis has been the most egregious.

When he called for a ban of Muslims I think that was racist, I know you disagree. But you must be able to see how the ban on Muslims appealed to racist voters.

No, it appealed to the islamophobes because Islam isn't a race, its a religion. Its not about disagreement, its about the facts and definitions. If you want to redefine what racism then you can make everybody racist.

And as metis pointed out above he was slow to denounce David Duke. Why? Not because like he said he had never heard of David Duke, that was an obvious lie.

Well trump actually said this in 2000:

"Well, you've got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party," Trump said on Feb. 14, 2000.

It looks like Trump just made a mistake because it wouldn't make any sense to avoid denouncing David Duke. Trump isn't an idiot and would want to distance himself from Duke because of the political backlash. Its very unlikely he actually wanted that endorsement. I don't know what he was thinking but it definitely wasn't to appeal to racist voters, since most voters are disgusted by the KKK as they rightly should be. You would lose many voters than you would gain if you accepted an endorsement from the kKK.

I say it again - Donald Trump has tailored his campaign from the beginning to appeal to racist voters

He tailored it to appeal to conservative voters, not necessarily racist voters.

In conclusion, I think many of trump's policy plans suck, and i won't vote for him, but he isn't a racist or a sexist. I try to be as unbiased as possible and so far he hasn't said or done anything that could be considered racist in the traditional sense. he might be considered racist in the social justice warrior sense, since racism is a term that's loosely thrown around. How about providing a definition of racism though?

 

[serp777]

Here in Australia we see this whole thing as one big circus, and most here would hate to see Trump winning, whatever wars America gets involved in, we are always draged into it.

But surely you don't want the lying, sociopathic cybord Hillary Clinton, right? I mean we have a terrible selection but wouldn't you also hate to see Hillary winning? The only positive thing about Hillary winning is the fact that we'll finally get our first female president.

 

[serp777]

Corruption unprecedented!

Eph_6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The spirit........of evil dwells in: principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness in.........high places.

"What difference at this point does it make" between the two?

Blessings, AJ

Well the difference is that Hillary Clinton is owned by super pacs and other corporate interests who pay her an exorbitant amount of money. Trump on the other hand is not.

 

[psychoslice]

But surely you don't want the lying, sociopathic cybord Hillary Clinton, right? I mean we have a terrible selection but wouldn't you also hate to see Hillary winning? The only positive thing about Hillary winning is the fact that we'll finally get our first female president.

Well if I had my way none of them would be elected, but some has to be, just imagine if no one turns up to vote.

 

[fantome profane]

If you think he tailors his campaign to appeal to racist voters then you probably think he is a racist. Furthermore, you first responded to my post which sad "Well we were talking about Trump being racist, so how am I missing the point? ", which doesn't really have anything to do with appealing to racist voters or not.

Yes I do think Donald Trump is a racist, but I was going to put that point aside and make a slightly different point. Ignoring for moment the question of whether of not Trump himself is a racist, the point is that he deliberately tailors his message to appeal to racist. And I think I have made that point.

He referred to a portion of illegal mexican immigrants as rapists. Thats a huge difference from referring to Mexicans in general as rapists. Also, Mexicans aren't a race--even if he did say all Mexicans were rapists, then that still isn't technically racist because it could include a white Mexican. Its creating a faulty stereotype and is horribly prejudiced for sure for sure, but in order to be racist he would have had to say something like "black people are rapists".

Right, but I don't believe your typical racist sees it that way. And again his message appeals to racists.

No, it appealed to the islamophobes because Islam isn't a race, its a religion. Its not about disagreement, its about the facts and definitions. If you want to redefine what racism then you can make everybody racist.

Again you are correct, but my point still stands. An Islamophobic message will likely appeal to racists, as well as Islamophopes. But I will happily agree that in addition to tailoring his message to racists he also tailored it to Islamophopes (and xenophobes as well). Xenophobes, Islamophobes, and racists all fit into a similar demographic, and there is considerable overlap. This is the demographic that Trump has decided to go after.

Well trump actually said this in 2000:

"Well, you've got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party," Trump said on Feb. 14, 2000.

It looks like Trump just made a mistake because it wouldn't make any sense to avoid denouncing David Duke. Trump isn't an idiot and would want to distance himself from Duke because of the political backlash. Its very unlikely he actually wanted that endorsement. I don't know what he was thinking but it definitely wasn't to appeal to racist voters, since most voters are disgusted by the KKK as they rightly should be. You would lose many voters than you would gain if you accepted an endorsement from the kKK.

Exactly my point. Trump knew perfectly well who David Duke was and what he was about. In the moment however he had a problem. He knew that so much of his support came from people who might be fans of David Duke as well. I think Trumps was conflicted, he knew that this as a loosing question for him no matter how he answered it. Can't say good things about David Duke, that would be political suicide, but in that moment Trump was also worried about offending the racists who were supporting him. That is why he avoided answering the questing in such a clumsy way, saying he didn't know who David Duke was.

Trump eventually made the same calculation that you just made here. Some of his supporters like David Duke, but more are disgusted by him so Trump denounce him. But it took his a few days to figure that out. Why did it take him so long? Because he had to consider the racists voters he had been appealing to so far.

He tailored it to appeal to conservative voters, not necessarily racist voters.

I don't see Trump getting big rallies because he supports small government and fiscal responsibility. He is appealing to the worst element of the republican base.

In conclusion, I think many of trump's policy plans suck, and i won't vote for him, but he isn't a racist or a sexist. I try to be as unbiased as possible and so far he hasn't said or done anything that could be considered racist in the traditional sense. he might be considered racist in the social justice warrior sense, since racism is a term that's loosely thrown around. How about providing a definition of racism though?

I really do think he is a racist, but I am not even arguing that point with you, put that aside. I am saying he is pandering to the racist element. And that is dangerous!

 

[fantome profane]

Well the difference is that Hillary Clinton is owned by super pacs and other corporate interests who pay her an exorbitant amount of money. Trump on the other hand is not.

Not true. Trump as decided that he will take money from super pacts and corporate donors. He is no longer "self funding" his campaign, if he ever really was.

 

[Underhill]

I'm no fan of trump but on what ground do you say hilary is better? Where is your source on all of this?

She was my representative for two terms and did a passable job. I see no evidence that she was a bad secretary of state. So many lies have been told about both her and Bill that I have no clue what is true and what is bull****. Between her and her husband, they have been under almost constant investigation since the 90's and the only thing they could get them on was Bill lying about a BJ. So either these investigations are witch hunts, or they are veritable Houdini's when it comes to making evidence disappear.

I've come to the conclusion that some of these investigations were definitely witch hunts (Benghazi for example) so I suspect they all are. This latest strikes me as a case of a computer illiterate person handling her emails poorly but not much more. Many of us have done the same. The fact that it is with classified documents ups the stakes a bit, but that is just a matter of scale.

The biggest problem Hillary has is she is uninspiring. So if she manages to win, it will be another 4 years (minimum) of deadlock and wrangling without any meaningful progress.

 

[Underhill]

Not true. Trump as decided that he will take money from super pacts and corporate donors. He is no longer "self funding" his campaign, if he ever really was.

I heard this morning that Christies campaign is paying off a huge chunk of Trump's debt, probably setting himself up to be VP.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Words sometimes have expanded meanings as time goes on, so "racism" tends to refer to pretty much any bigotry that's "racial" (however defined) or nationality based.

Indeed, a good example of how so many words have been rendered so broad and ambiguous as to be meaningless. Modern society's slow and brutal murder of language and communication continues.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why, yes, it would.

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

 

[metis]

Indeed, a good example of how so many words have been rendered so broad and ambiguous as to be meaningless. Modern society's slow and brutal murder of language and communication continues.

All languages evolve over time, and a subset area of research as a branch of anthropology is called "glottochronology", namely how languages evolve over time. It's not my area of anthro, but some of the research and its implications I have found to be quite interesting.