US Politics

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.

**Frazzled**

Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure.

**whembly**

Compel wrote:
So, well, my question is, has he?

At the time, most of the condemnations have been rather um...delicately chosen and very open to interpretation.

I distinctly remember Pence has (since his job is to be Trump's fixer

).

But, you're right, I don't recall Trump doing that... but, I haven't paid all that much attention to Trump since the Primaries.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure.

Frazz be like:

Spoiler:

**Ahtman**

Pence wrote:“I’m not really sure why the media keeps dropping David Duke’s name,”

So either he is flat out lying and/or is incredibly stupid.

**skyth**

Frazzled wrote:
Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure.

Citation please

Plus, that seems like a bit of a red herring...As you can't say that David Duke isn't racist...

**Spinner**

Frazzled wrote:
Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure.

It's pretty hard to argue that a significant chunk of Trump's support isn't racist.

As we've just seen, how significant a chunk is up for debate, but once you're making that argument, the guy they're supporting needs to do something more than waffle back and forth on whether or not he remembers them or wants their support while retweeting half the crap they post on Twitter if he doesn't want people thinking he's one too.

Then again, given Trump's history...

**Frazzled**

skyth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure.

Citation please

Plus, that seems like a bit of a red herring...As you can't say that David Duke isn't racist...

Democrats have turned calling anyone they dislike racist.
To disagree with Obama is to be a bigot. Even Bill and Hillary were called bigots in their last campaign.
Romney was called a racist.
Bush Jr. (aka The Shrub) was called a racist.
I remember when a Democrat called Jindal a racist-I guess never having seen a picture of him.

Politics is bloodsport, and like a sport it has its menu of written plays.
Its standard playbook procedure. Republicans are racists (Democrats had the last Klan Dragon). Republicans hate people and only serve big business (lets notice who was giving Clinton money). Republicans hate women. Republicans want to tell you what to do. Republicans are warmongers. Republicans clutch their Bibles and their Guns (well yea but they forgot "and their bourbon")

Thats ok. Republicans have their own standard procedures.
Democrats want to spend your money. Democrats are weak on defense/warmongers. Democrats hate the middle class and rich people. Democrats hate morals. Democrats women/unborn/people who make money/flyover country/the religious. Democrats hate guns (ok thats true). Frankly if you stepped away from Gun Control, I'd proffer HRC is more conservative than the Republican candidate-she'd make a find old school conservative.

Its all a game. Unfortunately the true believers don't realize it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's pretty hard to argue that a significant chunk of Trump's support isn't racist.

I don't disagree. I have battled with quite a few on other boards. I would measure it at about 5% - 10%, but I take a more conservative view (pun intended).
Note: I don't believe enforcing better border control, realizing that there is a criminal portion of illegal immigrants (one was caught in Austin recently trying to burn someone alive and had been deported multiple times), and that restricting immigration from countries having political instability and rampant terrorism is racism. (saying your judge is biased because his parents were Mexican and he's going to build a wall, the bestest wall evah on the other hand...yea).

I'd also gauge about half of Trump's strong support is anti-HRC. Had the Democrats ran, well HRC's VP pic instead, against Trump they'd be 20 points over Trump. Inversely had the Republicans ran Kasich he'd be 20 points above Clinton. Its no conspiracy to think the parties intentionally picked the worst candidates they could just to give the fig to the American people.

**jasper76**

This is worth a read of you are interested in where candidates stand on issues related to science. The candidates were asked about 20 issues. All buy Gary Johnson provided responses:

HTTP://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-the-presidential-candidates-know-about-science/

**Frazzled**

Good find. I made a few paragraphs and then stopped. The pablum was making my nose itch.

**Spinner**

jasper76 wrote:
This is worth a read of you are interested in where candidates stand on issues related to science. The candidates were asked about 20 issues. All buy Gary Johnson provided responses:

HTTP://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-the-presidential-candidates-know-about-science/

Interesting that Stein seems to have backtracked on her anti-vaccination stance.

Also interesting to note the length of the responses. Clinton and Stein had pretty consistent multi-paragraph answers; Trump's got shorter and shorter as the questionnaire went on. It got a little longer when they hit the second to last question, which was on immigration, and then dropped all the way down to three short sentences when asked about scientific integrity (which were pretty amusing, in light of some of his earlier answers). It was like he got bored halfway through

Also, his answer on ocean health was a pretty blatant "I don't give a crap".

**Frazzled**

Would not think that any candidate actually replied to this, and may not even have seen the answers.

**whembly**

What's interesting, just about every candidate played footsie with the anti-vaxxer.

**Relapse**

Frazzled wrote:
Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure. [/quo

Typical hypocrisy in politics. The 47% comment is evil unleashed, but the basket of deplorable a gets a pass from Clinton supporters. Same as the whole age attack on McCain. Suddenly, age isn't a factor.

**skyth**

Frazzled wrote:
skyth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure.

Citation please

Plus, that seems like a bit of a red herring...As you can't say that David Duke isn't racist...

Democrats have turned calling anyone they dislike racist.

Rather broad brush you are painting there. I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation of mainstream Democrats always calling something racists that isn't racist...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's pretty hard to argue that a significant chunk of Trump's support isn't racist.

Note: I don't believe enforcing better border control, realizing that there is a criminal portion of illegal immigrants (one was caught in Austin recently trying to burn someone alive and had been deported multiple times),

Immigrants commit violent crime at a much lower rate than natural born citizens. That there are a few examples doesn't make it true. The belief that they are responsible for a lot of violent crime is rooted not in reality, but xenophobia and racism.

and that restricting immigration from countries having political instability and rampant terrorism is racism.

The ones wanting to get out are likely NOT terrorists but rather people who want a chance to work hard and succeed. I really doubt there would be as much pushback against them if they were white Christians.

Also, back to the original question...are you trying to say that David Duke isn't racist, that he doesn't support Trump, that Trump doesn't constantly spout off racist/xenophobic things, and Trump isn't trying to attract the support of racists?

**Compel**

Oh I like that thing. Nice simple ask same questions, get answers, find their opinions.

**skyth**

Relapse wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure.

Typical hypocrisy in politics. The 47% comment is evil unleashed, but the basket of deplorable a gets a pass from Clinton supporters. Same as the whole age attack on McCain. Suddenly, age isn't a factor.

Not hypocritical in the least...the 47% characterization was attacking the poor and painting them as lazy. Saying that a lot of racists support Trump and Trump encourages that support? Pretty factual. Plus being racist IS deplorable while being poor doesn't mean you're lazy. Not to mention, a good chunk of the 47% (people that have a net gain on income tax) were actually Romney supporters.

**jasper76**

Compel wrote:
Oh I like that thing. Nice simple ask same questions, get answers, find their opinions.

I like the format because you get more than an off-the-cuff soundbite like you get at debates and press conferences. Force the candidate to put out a thoughtful response and lay it down in writing. The "gotcha question" defense doesn't work because the candidates and their campaigns are given plenty of time to think, research, and answer.

**Spinner**

jasper76 wrote:
Compel wrote:
Oh I like that thing. Nice simple ask same questions, get answers, find their opinions.

I like the format because you get more than an off-the-cuff soundbite like you get at debates and press conferences. Force the candidate to put out a thoughtful response and lay it down in writing. The "gotcha question" defense doesn't work because the candidates and their campaigns are given plenty of time to think, research, and answer.

Which really says something when you look at the responses

I wonder if Gary Johnson's ever going to get back to them?

**Frazzled**

skyth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
skyth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure.

Citation please

Plus, that seems like a bit of a red herring...As you can't say that David Duke isn't racist...

Democrats have turned calling anyone they dislike racist.

Rather broad brush you are painting there. I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation of mainstream Democrats always calling something racists that isn't racist...

Nah. You're a true believer. You have already stated you hate Republicans. No point. I wouldn't try to persuade a Trumpster either. Thats ok.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's pretty hard to argue that a significant chunk of Trump's support isn't racist.

Note: I don't believe enforcing better border control, realizing that there is a criminal portion of illegal immigrants (one was caught in Austin recently trying to burn someone alive and had been deported multiple times),

Immigrants commit violent crime at a much lower rate than natural born citizens. That there are a few examples doesn't make it true. The belief that they are responsible for a lot of violent crime is rooted not in reality, but xenophobia and racism.

**AlmightyWalrus**

"Democrats generalize and claim that everyone who disagrees with them are racists!"

"Do you have any such examples?"

"You're a democrat, you wouldn't understand!"

The irony is staggering.

**djones520**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Democrats generalize and claim that everyone who disagrees with them are racists!"

"Do you have any such examples?"

"You're a democrat, you wouldn't understand!"

The irony is staggering.

Citation?

www.democraticunderground.com/

**Spinner**

I think a good chunk of the David Duke - besides, you know, the obvious - reaction comes from the way Trump initially reacted - waffled, pretended he'd never met the guy, kinda-sorta-disavowed him, kinda-sorta-didn't...it's the same reaction he gives to all of the sketchy groups supporting him, and it makes it look like he's trying to give lip service to people who think it's a reasonable thing for a US presidential candidate to not want support from screaming racists, when in fact, he's winking back at them and waving them on in to the rally and Trump-brand merchandise stand. Which, you know. I think it's pretty clear he is.

There are, of course, a ton of other obnoxiously bigoted things he's done up on the national stage. I'm shocked all the crap he said about Judge Curiel hasn't gotten more attention, but then again, I'm shocked the whole Trump University thing hasn't gotten more attention. That seems like it would have been a campaign-ending scandal for any number of politicians, but I guess when you do something even more ridiculous the next week and divert everyone's attention to that...

**AlmightyWalrus**

djones520 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Democrats generalize and claim that everyone who disagrees with them are racists!"

"Do you have any such examples?"

"You're a democrat, you wouldn't understand!"

The irony is staggering.

Citation?

www.democraticunderground.com/

That's... a web page without any context. That isn't how citations work at all.

**Frazzled**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Democrats generalize and claim that everyone who disagrees with them are racists!"

"Do you have any such examples?"

"You're a democrat, you wouldn't understand!"

The irony is staggering.

Racist!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spinner wrote:
I think a good chunk of the David Duke - besides, you know, the obvious - reaction comes from the way Trump initially reacted - waffled, pretended he'd never met the guy, kinda-sorta-disavowed him, kinda-sorta-didn't...it's the same reaction he gives to all of the sketchy groups supporting him, and it makes it look like he's trying to give lip service to people who think it's a reasonable thing for a US presidential candidate to not want support from screaming racists, when in fact, he's winking back at them and waving them on in to the rally and Trump-brand merchandise stand. Which, you know. I think it's pretty clear he is.

There are, of course, a ton of other obnoxiously bigoted things he's done up on the national stage. I'm shocked all the crap he said about Judge Curiel hasn't gotten more attention, but then again, I'm shocked the whole Trump University thing hasn't gotten more attention. That seems like it would have been a campaign-ending scandal for any number of politicians, but I guess when you do something even more ridiculous the next week and divert everyone's attention to that...

Yes on all points.

**AlmightyWalrus**

I'll also add that everyone in this thread should be familiar with why the Robert Byrd argument is rubbish, considering how often it's been brought up and shot down on Dakka.

**djones520**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
djones520 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Democrats generalize and claim that everyone who disagrees with them are racists!"

"Do you have any such examples?"

"You're a democrat, you wouldn't understand!"

The irony is staggering.

Citation?

www.democraticunderground.com/

That's... a web page without any context. That isn't how citations work at all.

I'm sorry, would you like it in APA, or Chicago?

Spend some time looking through their web forums.

**Co'tor Shas**

djones520 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
djones520 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Democrats generalize and claim that everyone who disagrees with them are racists!"

"Do you have any such examples?"

"You're a democrat, you wouldn't understand!"

The irony is staggering.

Citation?

www.democraticunderground.com/

That's... a web page without any context. That isn't how citations work at all.

I'm sorry, would you like it in APA, or Chicago?

Spend some time looking through their web forums.

I think the point is that when you claim something it's best to provide evidence, not just go "look it up yourself",.

**djones520**

*sighs* If you want me to dive into that cesspool. This website is basically the counter to FreeRepublic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/118756861

Mon Aug 29, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.democraticunderground.com/118756861
heaven05 (12,015 posts)

what is the deal with this continuing racist behavior of whites

and that this behavior is still in place and widespread, nationwide, today August 29, 2016? I awoke this morning after a restless night of dreams, nightmares really. Nightmares of a time when PoC were being forced onto trains and sent to "relocation camps" to be reeducated in proper etiquette toward 'other' races and eventual 'employment' back into the agricultural fields, literally, and super large pig and chicken farms. This segment of a night of troubled sleep awoke me very early this morning.

I was in a restaurant yesterday and overheard a white couple, middle aged, talking about how far the negroes have come. I turned around and asked, quietly, far from where? Slavery, segregationist laws that denied civil and voting rights, ghettos? Far from where? People around us got quiet. The ones I was talking to said not a word. I was was finished with my meal. Left a tip and went to the register to pay. I quietly said, PoC never should have had far to come from, I left. I am so sick of this fething arrogant and demeaning mentality of many americans.

Don't get me wrong, there are some progressive and liberal whites out here. Some are even friends, yet who put this onus of responsibilty on their shoulders in the first goddamn place to be the supreme race? God, fate, darwin's natural selection? American racism is an example of a systemic and institutional sickness that so far, is not being cured. It is an infection, in this day of the trumpenfuher that is widespread and virulently infectious. How can I state this fact? Generations of precedent. Each generation of racists train a new generation of Dylan Roofs, trump supporters and new klan members. After years of thought on the subject of racism and racial warfare for dominance I have come to the conclusion that somehow racial memory of long ago events are embedded in our DNA and in those prone to fear 'others' is a prompt to them to try to dominate all 'others' Something like trump is agitating now.

Long ago African Empire was exemplified by Timbuktu. At it's height 25000 students from all over the civilized world attended the University. This fact alone dispels any myth of inferiority among PoC in the world at that time, yet fear made many try to diminish this acheivement by perpetrating the "they are all ignorant savages myth". Modern Tarzan movies pushed that into the minds of many. Am I wrong? It was for this reason that African Empire was not allowed to flourish and that African Empire was destroyed by envious Dutch, Arab, Portuguese, British and Asians with a host of others. The new americas involvement in that dastardly trade in slaves in etched in memory of many black and white, Union and Confederate. Yes to you people looking to spread the blame, intra tribal/nation warfare did supply some of the slaves for trade, but a vast majority came from those excursions/incursions by the many nationalities mentioned into the interior that provided the bodies from the many destroyed villages and towns that helped destroy African Empire. Gunpowder was the deciding factor

On to the present. This election is about racial and gender dominance. This is no small wonder given the rise of open racism and state sanctioned murder and execution of men, women and children of color since the ascension of Barack Hussein Obama as POTUS. No small wonder at all. Happy election season.

**Tannhauser42**

skyth wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Who cares? This is the Democrats trying to call anyone who disagrees with them racists, or "deplorables" as Clinton calls them. Standard operating procedure.

Typical hypocrisy in politics. The 47% comment is evil unleashed, but the basket of deplorable a gets a pass from Clinton supporters. Same as the whole age attack on McCain. Suddenly, age isn't a factor.

Not hypocritical in the least...the 47% characterization was attacking the poor and painting them as lazy. Saying that a lot of racists support Trump and Trump encourages that support? Pretty factual. Plus being racist IS deplorable while being poor doesn't mean you're lazy. Not to mention, a good chunk of the 47% (people that have a net gain on income tax) were actually Romney supporters.

The real problem in Romney's statement was that he flat out said it's not his job to worry about 47% of the populace. You want to be President, it damn well is your job to worry about every single American.

**d-usa**

Can you cross link the usernames of democrats on Dkaka to registered members of the DU? Do we need to PM Lego to get you IP addresses?

For all the democrats not on Dakka, how does the DU handle the traffic of millions of millions of democrats on their website?

**AlmightyWalrus**

djones520 wrote:
*sighs* If you want me to dive into that cesspool. This website is basically the counter to FreeRepublic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/118756861

Mon Aug 29, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.democraticunderground.com/118756861
heaven05 (12,015 posts)

what is the deal with this continuing racist behavior of whites

and that this behavior is still in place and widespread, nationwide, today August 29, 2016? I awoke this morning after a restless night of dreams, nightmares really. Nightmares of a time when PoC were being forced onto trains and sent to "relocation camps" to be reeducated in proper etiquette toward 'other' races and eventual 'employment' back into the agricultural fields, literally, and super large pig and chicken farms. This segment of a night of troubled sleep awoke me very early this morning.

I was in a restaurant yesterday and overheard a white couple, middle aged, talking about how far the negroes have come. I turned around and asked, quietly, far from where? Slavery, segregationist laws that denied civil and voting rights, ghettos? Far from where? People around us got quiet. The ones I was talking to said not a word. I was was finished with my meal. Left a tip and went to the register to pay. I quietly said, PoC never should have had far to come from, I left. I am so sick of this fething arrogant and demeaning mentality of many americans.

Don't get me wrong, there are some progressive and liberal whites out here. Some are even friends, yet who put this onus of responsibilty on their shoulders in the first goddamn place to be the supreme race? God, fate, darwin's natural selection? American racism is an example of a systemic and institutional sickness that so far, is not being cured. It is an infection, in this day of the trumpenfuher that is widespread and virulently infectious. How can I state this fact? Generations of precedent. Each generation of racists train a new generation of Dylan Roofs, trump supporters and new klan members. After years of thought on the subject of racism and racial warfare for dominance I have come to the conclusion that somehow racial memory of long ago events are embedded in our DNA and in those prone to fear 'others' is a prompt to them to try to dominate all 'others' Something like trump is agitating now.

Long ago African Empire was exemplified by Timbuktu. At it's height 25000 students from all over the civilized world attended the University. This fact alone dispels any myth of inferiority among PoC in the world at that time, yet fear made many try to diminish this acheivement by perpetrating the "they are all ignorant savages myth". Modern Tarzan movies pushed that into the minds of many. Am I wrong? It was for this reason that African Empire was not allowed to flourish and that African Empire was destroyed by envious Dutch, Arab, Portuguese, British and Asians with a host of others. The new americas involvement in that dastardly trade in slaves in etched in memory of many black and white, Union and Confederate. Yes to you people looking to spread the blame, intra tribal/nation warfare did supply some of the slaves for trade, but a vast majority came from those excursions/incursions by the many nationalities mentioned into the interior that provided the bodies from the many destroyed villages and towns that helped destroy African Empire. Gunpowder was the deciding factor

On to the present. This election is about racial and gender dominance. This is no small wonder given the rise of open racism and state sanctioned murder and execution of men, women and children of color since the ascension of Barack Hussein Obama as POTUS. No small wonder at all. Happy election season.

OK, now that we've got that part of the construction of your argument out of the way, can you explain what in the example you consider racist and why?