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.

 Ouze wrote:
At this point the best part of this thread is far and away the Trump supporters proving everything you suspect about Trump and the type of person he attracts.

Well, if the Hillary supporters would step up and start posting about her, we'd have something else to talk about.

I don't think there are any actual Hillary supporters on this site. >.>

tbh I've never even met a Hillary supporter in real life, and I live in the San Francisco bay area!

BlaxicanX has a point. I've never met a hillary supporter. Just trump haters.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I don't think there are any actual Hillary supporters on this site. >.>

tbh I've never even met a Hillary supporter in real life, and I live in the San Francisco bay area!

Were I Democrat, I would have voted for Hillary as opposed to Bernie in the Primary. Being registered independent, I don't have the option to vote here.

And in other news...Interesting article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

Some interesting outtakes.

Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.

Abramson, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal as well as former Executive Editor of the New York Times, had this to say about Hillary’s honesty: “As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.”

So what do we see in this data? What I see is that the public view of Hillary Clinton does not seem to be correlated to “scandals” or issues of character or whether she murdered Vince Foster. No, the one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power. Once she actually has that power her polls go up again. But whenever she asks for it her numbers drop like a manhole cover.

For millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills, the very idea that someone can make $100,000 or more for just giving a speech or hanging out at a Vegas nightclub is obscene. But as Richard Nixon used to say, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Hillary didn’t invent the speaking engagement industry, and she isn’t anywhere near the first person to make a lot of money from it. And while her fees are in the upper range of what speakers make, neither they nor the total amount of money she has made are unusual. It’s just unusual FOR A WOMAN.

Yeah, i don't think we have any genuine Hillary supporters here, just Trump/Republican opponents.

So, about that idea that drug testing requirements for welfare are a productive use of government money: http://theintellectualist.co/michigan-drug-testing-program-fails-to-yield-a-single-positive-result/

 Peregrine wrote:
So, about that idea that drug testing requirements for welfare are a productive use of government money: http://theintellectualist.co/michigan-drug-testing-program-fails-to-yield-a-single-positive-result/

Dakka OT already talked this subject into a lock. The general result was that someone who supports the idea of drug testing welfare recipients isn't interested in facts.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I don't think there are any actual Hillary supporters on this site. >.>

Pretty much.

tbh I've never even met a Hillary supporter in real life, and I live in the San Francisco bay area!

My wife is a Hillary so far as she voted for her in Virginia's primary and will vote for her in the general election.

I voted for Marco Rubio so I'm not sure what I'm going to do in the general, besides not vote for Trump.

 whembly wrote:
This guy right here.... Nailed it.

https://medium.com/@therickwilson/an-open-letter-to-reince-preibus-669321e2867c#.ut148sv3h

A funeral pyre indeed...

That was a good piece. Thanks for linking it.

I think it's too little too late, because the party isn't willing to split the party by challenging a Trump nomination. But it does a good job of putting blame on one more member of the Republican party for the role they've played in turning over and letting this Trump disaster happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, Asterios, you are saying Trump's ignorance is his defense?

This is where we are at. Defence of Trump basically amounts to 'he isn't racist, just really stupid'. Well, that and 'Clinton is worse because emails'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
At this point the best part of this thread is far and away the Trump supporters proving everything you suspect about Trump and the type of person he attracts.

Personally, I was shocked when Trump's only supporter in this thread turned out to have racist views of Jews. Shocked I tell you. Just amazed.

Well, Trump's mistakes aren't enough to stop Hillary's other enemies from piling on. The Littlefinger wanna be, Julian Assange, is releasing more of Clinton's emails and says they'll be very damaging to her. Now I don't know how much of Assange's claims are true (he is a little worm) but I do see it pushing much of Trump's idiocy to the back pages and that certainly can't be helpful to the Clinton campaign.

 Breotan wrote:
Well, if the Hillary supporters would step up and start posting about her, we'd have something else to talk about.

I think she's a perfectly good presidential candidate. Not without issues, like anyone, but I think she'll do just fine in the job.

What should a Clinton supporter post? What new information is there? Right now she's giving speeches that are kind of twee, but also show some of the policy substance she's known for. And those policies are all very well known at this point.

The one making news is Trump, because he keeps doing stuff that would have ended the candidacy of any other politician. Imagine if Romney had posted that Star of David image about Obama? We'd still be talking about it as the moment that Romney killed his campaign. But that thing wasn't even in Trump's shittiest 20 moments. And I think most people here would be confident that Trump will do something worse within the next week or two. That's what is capturing headlines.

 skyth wrote:
And in other news...Interesting article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

That was a deeply fascinating article. I have to admit that I'm reconsidering some of what I thought I knew based on it.

 skyth wrote:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

This is indeed one of the best articles I've ever read on Hillary. I actually dismissed the sexism bit when a friend suggested it earlier this year, but now I'm rethinking that a bit.

 feeder wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, about that idea that drug testing requirements for welfare are a productive use of government money: http://theintellectualist.co/michigan-drug-testing-program-fails-to-yield-a-single-positive-result/

Dakka OT already talked this subject into a lock. The general result was that someone who supports the idea of drug testing welfare recipients isn't interested in facts.

Yep... people who are "fiscally conservative" tend to be A-OK with this sort of thing, as long as it's their pet thing (for other evidence, look at defense spending, particularly that little black hole of funds called the F-35)

Edit: for me, I can simply add this article/state to the growing pile of evidence for why drug testing for welfare doesnt work (as if Arizona, Florida, Kentucky and, IIRC, Indiana weren't enough)

I'd add it to the list of Republic pet projects that fix problems that do not apparently exist

 sebster wrote:

Personally, I was shocked when Trump's only supporter in this thread turned out to have racist views of Jews. Shocked I tell you. Just amazed.

well if you knew who I was you would know I do not have hate towards the Jewish people(amazing I go from facebook where someone is calling me all kinds of anti-semtic names and such to this site where i'm accused of hating the Jewish people, go figure), but then again ignorance is your lantern and it shall lead you, furthermore never did I say I'm not for Hillary because of some e-mails, but then again that leads back to my first part where ignorance is your lantern and it shall lead you brightly.

as too emails it appears wiki leaks have released a bunch of them:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286444-wikileaks-publishes-clinton-war-emails

furthermore it seems Sander's supporters are crowing about the e-mail releases more then the republican's are on the web.

but remember Sebster let that lantern of ignorance forever light your way.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


How do you have a vetting process for illegal immigrants?

its easy kick them out vetting done.

 Ouze wrote:
That was a deeply fascinating article. I have to admit that I'm reconsidering some of what I thought I knew based on it.

It's a very good article that does a really good job of showing how shallow and hypocritical the attacks against Clinton really are.

I'm not certain I agree with the articles conclusion about why Clinton's ratings drop while she's competing for office, though. Her gender certainly plays a part but there seems a more obvious conclusion - she's a Democrat. Obama's popularity dropped when he competing as well, and throughout his presidency as he was constantly attacked by Republicans, pretty much from his nomination until about late last year when there was no longer anything political to gain from (notice the pivot in the Benghazi hearings to switch from Obama to Clinton). And sure enough in the last year his approval has started to improve. Throughout the attacks on Obama people were keen to blame it on race, but they missed the bigger reality that Republicans will attack with absolutely anything they can think of, no matter how stupid it was.

And before Obama there was Bill Clinton. As the article points out Republicans once spent 140 man hours investigating the Clinton Christmas card list. It wasn't because Bill Clinton was a man, it was because he was a Democrat.

The article raises a good question about why Trump's university scam gets nowhere near as much attention as putting classified emails on a private server. The answer isn't just gender though, but with the bases of the two parties. This appetite for ridiculous mudraking is something Republicans have created within their own party. This new approach was centred around Newt Gingrich, he wasn't alone and it had already started before he got there, but he was the champion for this new method of politics - claim that all politicians are nasty, poo flinging monkeys, then throw as poo as possible and drag everyone down, then declare the original claim was right all along.

It worked, somewhat. Washington is a much nastier place today. But the effect has been heavily one-sided. It is routine among Republicans to trade in bizarro conspiracies, much less so among Democrats. Compare 9/11 trutherism to birtherism. They're both utterly crazy, of course, but while Democrats gave no voice to the anti-Bush conspiracy, the latter was frequently touched on by Republicans. A lot has been made about Trump's birtherism and it's race implications, but the bigger signal was that Trump was the candidate that was finally willing to give a voice to every dingbat conspiracy that was whispered around the fringes of Republican politics.

It's quite fitting that Gingrich is being vetted for VP. He birthed this madness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
well if you knew who I was you would know I do not have hate towards the Jewish people

I didn't say you hated Jews, I said you had racist ideas about them. I've already explained this to you, but okay let's do it again.

Racism isn't just hating another culture. Racism is whenever you take a generalised trait and assume it must apply to all individuals in group. So assuming a person is a good accountant because they happen to be Jewish is racism, in the exact same way that assuming a black person must be good at basketball must be racist.

Do you get it now? And remember, everyone has racist moments from time to time, that's not a hanging offence. What's problematic is when racist ideas are denied, because that stops people from growing and improving, it's what keeps them racist.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
well if you knew who I was you would know I do not have hate towards the Jewish people

I didn't say you hated Jews, I said you had racist ideas about them. I've already explained this to you, but okay let's do it again.

Racism isn't just hating another culture. Racism is whenever you take a generalised trait and assume it must apply to all individuals in group. So assuming a person is a good accountant because they happen to be Jewish is racism, in the exact same way that assuming a black person must be good at basketball must be racist.

Do you get it now? And remember, everyone has racist moments from time to time, that's not a hanging offence. What's problematic is when racist ideas are denied, because that stops people from growing and improving, it's what keeps them racist.

well if you remember correctly I said that is what some people say, also i'm good with money am I a racist stereotype? i'm good with math am I racist stereotype? you should really know what you are talking about or who you are talking about before opening your mouth and inserting your foot into it.

I could lock the thread again. Or I could ban two posters in it who seem to prefer arguing with each other over discussing the actual topic.

Let's see what happens next.

I agree with the conclusions about Hillary;

(1) There isn't anything bad in her past you wouldn't be likely to find in a random average politician's career.
(2) The attacks on her are partly driven by sexism.
(3) They are more driven by her being a Democrat.
(4) Hillary is by far the better candidate, with immense relevant experience.

Nevermind, just Asterios things.

EDIT

I truly have no clue exactly how to go about this anymore. A guy made racist comments. As the only Trump supporter in the thread that's pretty obviously relevant. He's denying that he ever said anything racist. That's a lie, because we have the original statement. Even though it the comment was deleted by a mod it lives in quoted posts. So what are we supposed to do? Pretend the guy isn't racist? Just steer clear of any of the countless things he's said that are wrong, because at any point a mod could come in and blame both the guy making bad claims and the people calling him on them?

How exactly do the mods think we should go about any of this?

Personally I try ignore everything that Asterios posts, unless it is yellow flagged. (I don't have him on Ignore, though if I were not a moderator I certainly would.)

I would advise you to do the same, and not to engage with Asterios in any way.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I try ignore everything that Asterios posts, unless it is yellow flagged. (I don't have him on Ignore, though if I were not a moderator I certainly would.)

I would advise you to do the same, and not to engage with Asterios in any way.

At risk of dragging this off-topic: if you, a forum moderator, are willing to openly say that nothing Asterios posts has any value to you and you won't read it (unless obligated to do so in your duties as a moderator) and suggest that other people do the same then why is he allowed to keep posting here? I'm with sebster on this, I find it incredibly frustrating that he is allowed to post blatantly false statements, open racism, etc, and people who challenge him on it are told to stop and that it's "off-topic". And, besides being personally frustrating, it gives a very skewed and/or incorrect version of the story to anyone who is reading this thread out of genuine interest in US politics when things like that aren't corrected.

For example, the discussion of "what is racism" is entirely relevant in a discussion of US politics given how common the question of "is Trump racist even though he doesn't openly say racial slurs about people he doesn't like" is right now. You aren't going to get accurate information on US politics if one person is allowed to say "the things Trump is doing aren't racist" and then there's a moderator warning to stop discussing the subject.

I would think he would have gotten that suspension he was threatened with if he continued posting threads that immediately get locked. He is up to 5 on the front page now. But hey, whatever.

I agree, in that I no longer have any idea how to participate here - with a noise machine of derp, lies, and nonsense that you aren't allowed to rebut anymore, seemingly. I think all we can do is simply abandon the thread until he eventually gets banned by his own behavior which is something that seems inevitable. If this thread is locked, which also seems inevitable, I imagine there will eventually be another one to discuss the election at some point in the future, and it almost certainly will have a better signal to noise ratio.

And now for once I am going to follow my own advice and find something better to do until that last bit happens.

 Peregrine wrote:
At risk of dragging this off-topic: if you, a forum moderator, are willing to openly say that nothing Asterios posts has any value to you and you won't read it (unless obligated to do so in your duties as a moderator) and suggest that other people do the same then why is he allowed to keep posting here?

If the threshold for being allowed to continue posting here was that the moderators liked how and what you posted, there are various other posters who would be long gone.

Dakka's rules are intentionally low-pass filters.

I'm with sebster on this, I find it incredibly frustrating that he is allowed to post blatantly false statements, open racism, etc, and people who challenge him on it are told to stop and that it's "off-topic". And, besides being personally frustrating, it gives a very skewed and/or incorrect version of the story to anyone who is reading this thread out of genuine interest in US politics when things like that aren't corrected.

And so you should be addressing the points, not the poster. This isn't new folks, and in spite of what modern political "discourse" might have you believe, it IS possible to refute "blatantly false statements" without simply attacking the person who posts them.

For example, the discussion of "what is racism" is entirely relevant in a discussion of US politics given how common the question of "is Trump racist even though he doesn't openly say racial slurs about people he doesn't like" is right now. You aren't going to get accurate information on US politics if one person is allowed to say "the things Trump is doing aren't racist" and then there's a moderator warning to stop discussing the subject.

Sure, "what is racism" is topical. "You're a racist" - "no, YOU are" isn't. We had the latter.

We're going to have a cooling off period now.