Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I don't want the Republicans to begin using super delegates the way Democrats do, but fething hell this stupidity with Trump has got to stop.

Why the hell are people so blind to who Trump really is and what he actually represents?

You assume that they don't know who he really is and what he represents. It is possible that they do.

I actually interacted with a live Trump supporter. They really didn't. Its scary.

Honestly I've stopped explaining to Drumpf supporters why Drumpf is bad.

People need to realize the Drumpf supporters don't care about consistency or policies or issues. All they want is someone to tell them that they are pretty and everything will be okay. People who don't even like him are supporting him because he is in the lead lol. How do you educate people that see lack of education as a good thing. They know its good because Drumpf told them so.

I actually watch one of his rally speeches all the way through and it was a literal trip through insanity to me. But I get it now and I realize its just wasted effort. Let people do the stupid things they want to do.

 skyth wrote:

Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.

Racists can hang out on the left as well. And that's how you end up with people who are pro-choice (keeps the black population down), pro-welfare (control where they live, where they move to, keep blacks in line by controlling their resources because they know if they vote against you they will loose their lifeline), etc etc.

Racists do stupid stuff for stupid reasons, and sometimes racists even do smart stuff for stupid reasons.

Being conservative doesn't really have anything to do with being racist even if a lot of people just happen to be both. I know that a lot of times people feel that I'm playing the race card against republicans or think that I'm arguing that republicans are racist when talking about voter ID laws. Yes, Trump attracts racists and republicans, but I do think that in the name of civil discourse we need to make it clear that people are not automatically racist by virtue of being republican, or vice versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I don't want the Republicans to begin using super delegates the way Democrats do, but fething hell this stupidity with Trump has got to stop.

Why the hell are people so blind to who Trump really is and what he actually represents?

You assume that they don't know who he really is and what he represents. It is possible that they do.

I actually interacted with a live Trump supporter. They really didn't. Its scary.

One of my very good friends is on the polar opposite of me when it comes to politics, and we both know not to talk too much politics other than as casual small talk.

But we are both hoping that Rubio will pull through in Oklahoma. He knows that I'm voting Bernie tomorrow and (likely) Hillary later this year, but I want the "best case scenario" for a possible loss in November. And that would be anyone but Trump for me.

 Breotan wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The hatred for the Clintons is less than the hatred for Obama from the right from what I've seen. Hatred against the Clintons gets less traction than against Obama.

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.
And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.

The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities

That doesn't imply causation though.

Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.

You would be very wrong. The Republicans certainly get a bad rap due to their own inability to deal with the charge, actual racists in the party spouting off in front of news cameras, and being joined at the hip to Fox News. There are a lot of racists in the Democrat party, too, but Democrat voters just don't seem to care about them. Even when they show up in the news, it doesn't seem to affect Democrat numbers. I'm really not sure why the Democrat party gets a pass on this but until the Republicans figure out how things like "optics" and "situational awareness" work I guess the Democrats continue to get one.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that racists in the Democrat party are shown as being clowns or cartoonish while racists in the Republican party are come off as sinister or dangerous.

I think mostly, Democrats that do/say racist things are seen as misguided and open to education. A Republican doing the same isn't not seen as being able to be educated (Probably because the party is against education for the most part). Also, racists don't seem to have power in the Democratic party, but they do in the Republicans.

You also have different severities of racism. Usually you will only see minor racism (basically Privilege) coming from a Democrat, whereas the nastier ones that tend to hurt minorities comes from Republicans.

Plus, Republicans are big on party loyalty and everyone being in lockstep(if that is the right way to phrase it...) whereas Democrats are more open to differences being in the mix. So any Republican being racist is seen as being representative of the entire party, whereas a Democrat being racist is seen as representing only themselves.

Plus, I would gather to say if you do a Venn diagram of racist, Democrat, and Republican...You would have more of the racists being together with Republicans than Democrats. I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.

Racists can hang out on the left as well. And that's how you end up with people who are pro-choice (keeps the black population down), pro-welfare (control where they live, where they move to, keep blacks in line by controlling their resources because they know if they vote against you they will loose their lifeline), etc etc.

Racists do stupid stuff for stupid reasons, and sometimes racists even do smart stuff for stupid reasons.

Being conservative doesn't really have anything to do with being racist even if a lot of people just happen to be both. I know that a lot of times people feel that I'm playing the race card against republicans or think that I'm arguing that republicans are racist when talking about voter ID laws. Yes, Trump attracts racists and republicans, but I do think that in the name of civil discourse we need to make it clear that people are not automatically racist by virtue of being republican, or vice versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I don't want the Republicans to begin using super delegates the way Democrats do, but fething hell this stupidity with Trump has got to stop.

Why the hell are people so blind to who Trump really is and what he actually represents?

You assume that they don't know who he really is and what he represents. It is possible that they do.

I actually interacted with a live Trump supporter. They really didn't. Its scary.

One of my very good friends is on the polar opposite of me when it comes to politics, and we both know not to talk too much politics other than as casual small talk.

But we are both hoping that Rubio will pull through in Oklahoma. He knows that I'm voting Bernie tomorrow and (likely) Hillary later this year, but I want the "best case scenario" for a possible loss in November. And that would be anyone but Trump for me.

100% agreement with you.

Also, you're totally right about Trump. A Trump ticket guaran-F'n-tee that the next President will come from the Democratic ticket.

 skyth wrote:
I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican

Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican

Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .

Yeah...When I posted that, I figured that someone would bring something that is 50 years old to try to 'prove' that they are the same

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican

Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .

Yeah...When I posted that, I figured that someone would bring something that is 50 years old to try to 'prove' that they are the same

I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.

Also, you're totally right about Trump. A Trump ticket guaran-F'n-tee that the next President will come from the Democratic ticket.

I don't believe that actually. HRC is finally starting to win, but dude for awhile she was losing to Moses' older crotchetier commie brother (I'd have voted for him FYI...). The fact she had to flip flop on a bunch of positions and actually battle this guy shows how weak she is.

The US has always survived despite its politicians. This is the first time I am actually concerned about its future. I predicted radical political movements would start with the Great Recession, but I didn't really believe it. Yet here we.

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican

Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .

Yeah...When I posted that, I figured that someone would bring something that is 50 years old to try to 'prove' that they are the same

I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.

Can't argue with that. In general, I would say it overlaps a lot with the conservative side of the spectrum, regardless...Well, social conservative. As the parties shift in ideology, that can shift the racist support.

 Frazzled wrote:

Also, you're totally right about Trump. A Trump ticket guaran-F'n-tee that the next President will come from the Democratic ticket.

I don't believe that actually. HRC is finally starting to win, but dude for awhile she was losing to Moses' older crotchetier commie brother (I'd have voted for him FYI...). The fact she had to flip flop on a bunch of positions and actually battle this guy shows how weak she is.

The US has always survived despite its politicians. This is the first time I am actually concerned about its future. I predicted radical political movements would start with the Great Recession, but I didn't really believe it. Yet here we.

The problem is inequality. It makes people unhappy, makes them feel like they missed the boat.

Can potentially destabilise entire nations.

Hopefully it won't get that far in the US. I think Americans are too smart to vote in a loony like Trump. But the fact that he's gotten this far is pretty worrying, all the same. But it's not a US only phenomenon. We just had a general election in Ireland (3 week campaign! hah!) and no party has been returned with enough numbers to allow for a successful coalition. The likelyhood is a pretty unstable minority government of the two crappy centre parties (one corrupt, the other arrogant and uncaring). But even that might not last long.

 Da Boss wrote:


Hopefully it won't get that far in the US. I think Americans are too smart to vote in a loony like Trump. But the fact that he's gotten this far is pretty worrying, all the same. But it's not a US only phenomenon. We just had a general election in Ireland (3 week campaign! hah!) and no party has been returned with enough numbers to allow for a successful coalition. The likelyhood is a pretty unstable minority government of the two crappy centre parties (one corrupt, the other arrogant and uncaring). But even that might not last long.

I know I have said it before, but to me it really feels that Trump is our weird version of the rise of the nationalist-right-wing-parties that are gaining voters in Europe.

Aye, it surely is the same brand of populism based on fear and anger. Ugly, but predictable.

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican

Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .

Yeah...When I posted that, I figured that someone would bring something that is 50 years old to try to 'prove' that they are the same

I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.

Can't argue with that. In general, I would say it overlaps a lot with the conservative side of the spectrum, regardless...Well, social conservative. As the parties shift in ideology, that can shift the racist support.

I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.

 Breotan wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican

Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .

Yeah...When I posted that, I figured that someone would bring something that is 50 years old to try to 'prove' that they are the same

I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.

Can't argue with that. In general, I would say it overlaps a lot with the conservative side of the spectrum, regardless...Well, social conservative. As the parties shift in ideology, that can shift the racist support.

I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.

Who mentioned caring who they endorse? The whole point was that racists (like the KKK) are more likely to currently be supporting Republican candidates, not the every Republican is racist.

 Breotan wrote:

I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.

The problem is not really with the KKK endorsing Trump, or people taking that endorsement seriously.

For most people the problem is with Trump not taking that endorsement and telling the KKK to shove it up their rear, but instead appearing like he is okay with the KKK endorsing him.

I did watch that interview. It really was kinda scary.

But not scary in the way I expected it to be, if that makes sense.

It felt really very cleverly worded as a 'neither confirm nor deny' sort of way. As opposed to an outright, "they're jerks" or even like, going for it and agreeing would be less scary.

But, hedging your bets in a response, in a conversation about that lot?

That's just scary.

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.

The problem is not really with the KKK endorsing Trump, or people taking that endorsement seriously.

For most people the problem is with Trump not taking that endorsement and telling the KKK to shove it up their rear, but instead appearing like he is okay with the KKK endorsing him.

 Compel wrote:
I did watch that interview. It really was kinda scary.

But not scary in the way I expected it to be, if that makes sense.

It felt really very cleverly worded as a 'neither confirm nor deny' sort of way. As opposed to an outright, "they're jerks" or even like, going for it and agreeing would be less scary.

But, hedging your bets in a response, in a conversation about that lot?

That's just scary.

I completely agree with both of you on this. I can see Republican insider types smashing their heads against the wall known that they're going to be stuck with this clown as the eventual nominee. Democrats are likely wiping their brow knowing that they've dodged a bullet.

It's a fair indictment of the Republican party as it stands that he is in this position. They used to be really good at party discipline and working together - it's one reason they used to hand the democrats their asses on lots of issues for a long time.

But the discipline seems to have been broken by the Tea Party surge, and Trump is it's horrible offspring.

Tomorrow will be interesting!

Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.

The problem is not really with the KKK endorsing Trump, or people taking that endorsement seriously.

For most people the problem is with Trump not taking that endorsement and telling the KKK to shove it up their rear, but instead appearing like he is okay with the KKK endorsing him.

 Compel wrote:
I did watch that interview. It really was kinda scary.

But not scary in the way I expected it to be, if that makes sense.

It felt really very cleverly worded as a 'neither confirm nor deny' sort of way. As opposed to an outright, "they're jerks" or even like, going for it and agreeing would be less scary.

But, hedging your bets in a response, in a conversation about that lot?

That's just scary.

I completely agree with both of you on this. I can see Republican insider types smashing their heads against the wall known that they're going to be stuck with this clown as the eventual nominee. Democrats are likely wiping their brow knowing that they've dodged a bullet.

I'm not sure Democrats come off good against Trump. Bernie would get crushed by Trump in any head to head debates because Trump will stay off issues and grind Bernie down while Bernie looks weak because he won't fight back using pointless dribble. Hilary might not do so well either because of the similar reasons. Trump can pull others down to his level and beat them at his game.

Then there is the fact that Trump could demotivate Democrat voters and Republican voters. Leaving his dedicated band of clowns to dictate who becomes the new president.

Da Boss wrote:It's a fair indictment of the Republican party as it stands that he is in this position. They used to be really good at party discipline and working together - it's one reason they used to hand the democrats their asses on lots of issues for a long time.

But the discipline seems to have been broken by the Tea Party surge, and Trump is it's horrible offspring.

Tomorrow will be interesting!

I thought Cruz was the Tea Party spawn and Trump was the "dey turk er jobz" candidate?

 Frazzled wrote:
I predicted radical political movements would start with the Great Recession, but I didn't really believe it. Yet here we.

Sometimes movements are slow in coming, sometimes they are rapid and painful. Right now, there seems to be a lot of tension pent up and it looks like this may show what's going on inside America. I guess we all knew it would be ugly, but Trump's act will be tough to clean up so long as he keeps up like this. There is no way to cover it- it can't be polished. The question is will the rest of the Republican base eat this sandwich? While there seems to be strong pushback from elements that don't want to get their hands dirty in this sort of thing, you can't put the cat back in the bag; and, Trump seems to be poised to emerge with an inevitable breakthrough. It's looking like a blowout.

General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?

 feeder wrote:
General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?

This guy:


Seriously... neither most likely.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's a fair indictment of the Republican party as it stands that he is in this position. They used to be really good at party discipline and working together - it's one reason they used to hand the democrats their asses on lots of issues for a long time.

But the discipline seems to have been broken by the Tea Party surge, and Trump is it's horrible offspring.

Tomorrow will be interesting!

The Tea Party grassroots movement hasn't had a negative impact on the party. The "15 Core Beliefs" of the movement, are made up of the things that the cross-section of Republican Party voters have always stood for. The problem is that the party hasn't lived up to expectations, and it's traditional base is fed up of it. Especially in the areas of illegal immigration, corporate bailouts, and stimulus plans.

In a word, the party has hurt itself. The Tea Party movement is just part of the fallout from that

 feeder wrote:
General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?

I would vote for Hillary but I would not feel very good about it. I know perfectly well that it would be at least 4 and probably 8 years of one sleazy, plausibly deniable scandal* after the other, over and over again, followed by at least one impeachment attempt. It's tiring just to think about the prospect.

However, I cannot vote for Trump in any situation, and not voting is not an option for me. Probably kind of dumb but I do feel an obligation to perform my civic duty, for what it's worth, I try to always vote whether it be local elections, midterms, what have you.

I wish Biden would have run. I would have felt OK with Joe Biden.


*And, for the record, while I don't think there has really yet been any evidence shown to prove that she violated laws on handling confidential materials, it's a little immaterial, because the whole private server was obviously an attempt to perform an end-run around FOIA laws. That might not be illegal but it's certainly gakky, garbage governance. I like FOIA laws. She's a terrible candidate and I don't like her at all, and I really resent the GOP for not running someone a little more reasonable to provide an alternative. I do sometimes vote Republican as well and this would have been, like, a super prime opportunity to do so. I truly don't understand how these idiots came to be the final 3.

Ouze, you could always look toward Jill Stein as an alternative to the big two.
http://www.jill2016.com

 feeder wrote:
General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?

I'd probably just vote for some grass-roots third party.

I live in California, so it's perfectly acceptable to toss my vote directly into the trash.

Well said Ouze...

Well said...

I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Ouze, you could always look toward Jill Stein as an alternative to the big two.
http://www.jill2016.com

I know her, and I like her, but honestly, I feel like getting burned on Ralph Nader once was enough for a lifetime I dunno - I will have to think it over.

Also, this was a thing today.

I concur with the commenters that it was likely private security, rather than Secret Service - I feel like if it was Secret Service A.) There would have been more than one of them acting and B.) There would have been an arrest made to justify it. I definitely could be wrong but I'd be fairly surprised.

Dayum that's a takedown!

Maybe we should have these conventions go through a "free-for-all" brawl.