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.

 whembly wrote:
This example is used to highlight the double-standards that exists in politics.

Robert Byrd as a Republican would've never been able to have much political success as he had as a career Democratic politician.

I think it might have got him the Republican presidential nominee pick, had he been willing to double down on it instead of renouncing it halfway through his career.

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So, median income for the middle class rose in 2015 by 5.2%, the fastest increase ever recorded by the federal government.

Can't wait to see how this fits into Trumps "America's is a Gak Hole" story.

Also, poverty rate fell 1.2%, the biggest decline ince 1968.

Median income doesn't tell the story that the middle class is splitting. The difference between upper and lower middle classn is getting bigger and that's the story behind the middle class disappearing. Rather than having a comfortable middle class life people are closer to upper and lower class, making it big or struggling. The median may still be rising, but more people on either side are further away from that number.

Considering what a median is and how many more people are in the lower class, I wouldn't say that is true. If it was the mean (average) I might agree with you. The median going up points to good things.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This example is used to highlight the double-standards that exists in politics.

Robert Byrd as a Republican would've never been able to have much political success as he had as a career Democratic politician.

I think it might have got him the Republican presidential nominee pick, had he been willing to double down on it instead of renouncing it halfway through his career.

You've been having fun with the hyperbole lately, haven't you?

 jasper76 wrote:


Yeah, who really cares about the will of the people in a democracy?

Hey man. Its only democracy if I get my way. Anything less is just tyranny!

 jasper76 wrote:


The KKK isn't really resurgent. What is resurgent is white nationalism. .

We've noticed.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/46173_White_Supremacists_Were_Everywhere_at_the_GOP_Convention


http://nypost.com/2016/06/30/the-ku-klux-klan-is-slowly-rising-again/

http://www.theweek.co.uk/64369/ku-klux-klan-boasts-rising-numbers-as-racial-tensions-soar

his example is used to highlight the double-standards that exists in politics.

Robert Byrd as a Republican would've never been able to have much political success as he had as a career Democratic politician.

adorable.





who is that in the middle there ...

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This example is used to highlight the double-standards that exists in politics.

Robert Byrd as a Republican would've never been able to have much political success as he had as a career Democratic politician.

I think it might have got him the Republican presidential nominee pick, had he been willing to double down on it instead of renouncing it halfway through his career.

You've been having fun with the hyperbole lately, haven't you?

I'm not sure what to say to that. On the one hand, Trump implied most Mexicans are rapists and criminals, and some, possibly, are good people. On the other hand, we have Robert Byrd, a man who left the KKK when Hillary Clinton was 5 years old, and who later renounced all his racist past and voted 100% in line with the NAACP, so clearly, both parties are racist. But yeah, I'm the one being ridiculous.

 Ouze wrote:
I have no idea what exactly that meandering... whatever it was, was a call to. It's like a dogwhistle being blown under a pillow.

Talking to me? Just ranting about a rant I see from Trumpsters.
Saw my first "Hillary for Prison" at a match Sunday, and here I am with my "Mess with my Wiener Dog and they'll never find your body" shirt and Aggie Dad hat. Oh well.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I have no idea what exactly that meandering... whatever it was, was a call to. It's like a dogwhistle being blown under a pillow.

Talking to me? Just ranting about a rant I see from Trumpsters.

No, sorry - that video of Bevins where he allegedly calls for blood if Hillary gets elected. Or something. There's definitely bloodshed, but it's not clear why.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This example is used to highlight the double-standards that exists in politics.

Robert Byrd as a Republican would've never been able to have much political success as he had as a career Democratic politician.

I think it might have got him the Republican presidential nominee pick, had he been willing to double down on it instead of renouncing it halfway through his career.

You've been having fun with the hyperbole lately, haven't you?

I'm not sure what to say to that. On the one hand, Trump implied most Mexicans are rapists and criminals, and some, possibly, are good people. On the other hand, we have Robert Byrd, a man who left the KKK when Hillary Clinton was 5 years old, and who later renounced all his racist past and voted 100% in line with the NAACP, so clearly, both parties are racist. But yeah, I'm the one being ridiculous.

Don't forget he said the judge is biased because he was building a wall.

Well, the Mexican hive-mind does work all of it's tendrils in perfect co-ordination, a united bloc which all feels and thinks the same.

In any event, bitching about Trump is kind of dumb (even though yeah that's what I was just doing). I think someone else said in this thread, he really doesn't have any supporters here, which I find to be true. The best you can find are resigned acceptors.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This example is used to highlight the double-standards that exists in politics.

Robert Byrd as a Republican would've never been able to have much political success as he had as a career Democratic politician.

I think it might have got him the Republican presidential nominee pick, had he been willing to double down on it instead of renouncing it halfway through his career.

You've been having fun with the hyperbole lately, haven't you?

I'm not sure what to say to that. On the one hand, Trump implied most Mexicans are rapists and criminals, and some, possibly, are good people. On the other hand, we have Robert Byrd, a man who left the KKK when Hillary Clinton was 5 years old, and who later renounced all his racist past and voted 100% in line with the NAACP, so clearly, both parties are racist. But yeah, I'm the one being ridiculous.

Don't forget he said the judge is biased because he was building a wall.

In his words - Judge Curiel is, he believes, a Mexican.

Oh, and the Khan family are just mad because he won't let terrorists into the US.

This man is running for President of the United States, everyone.

To go back to the "Deplorable" Trump supporters point, The Economist did some research into it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-8?cid1=cust/ddnew/n/n/n/20160913n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/UK/email&etear=dailydispatch

The TL/DR is that the stats actually do make them look pretty deplorable, but you shouldn't always trust the stats.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To go back to the "Deplorable" Trump supporters point, The Economist did some research into it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-8?cid1=cust/ddnew/n/n/n/20160913n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/UK/email&etear=dailydispatch

The TL/DR is that the stats actually do make them look pretty deplorable, but you shouldn't always trust the stats.

So Hillary was wrong when she said half, it should of been more like 2/3rds

I'd think that whether or not someone or something is "deplorable" depends entirely on the eye of the beholder.

 Ouze wrote:
In any event, bitching about Trump is kind of dumb (even though yeah that's what I was just doing). I think someone else said in this thread, he really doesn't have any supporters here, which I find to be true. The best you can find are resigned acceptors.

That might because most of his vocal supports have probably been given permanent vacations from the OT because, like their preferred presidential candidate, they were obnoxious trolls that constantly spewed keyboard diarrhea.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To go back to the "Deplorable" Trump supporters point, The Economist did some research into it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-8?cid1=cust/ddnew/n/n/n/20160913n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/UK/email&etear=dailydispatch

The TL/DR is that the stats actually do make them look pretty deplorable, but you shouldn't always trust the stats.

So Hillary was wrong when she said half, it should of been more like 2/3rds

See, to me, Romney's offense was basically stating it wasn't his job to worry about a chunk of the populace, not the number he used or how he described them.
What is the offense in Hillary's statement? The number she used? Or that "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" does not represent America? I would like to think we are idealistic enough to agree that "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" does not, in fact, represent American ideals and values.

According to my 20 minutes with talk radio, it's that she called them irredeemable; which isn't true because this is America and Jesus died for their redemption.

 d-usa wrote:
According to my 20 minutes with talk radio, it's that she called them irredeemable; which isn't true because this is America and Jesus died for their redemption.

White Jesus not that brown middle eastern Jesus

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To go back to the "Deplorable" Trump supporters point, The Economist did some research into it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-8?cid1=cust/ddnew/n/n/n/20160913n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/UK/email&etear=dailydispatch

The TL/DR is that the stats actually do make them look pretty deplorable, but you shouldn't always trust the stats.

So Hillary was wrong when she said half, it should of been more like 2/3rds

See, to me, Romney's offense was basically stating it wasn't his job to worry about a chunk of the populace, not the number he used or how he described them.
What is the offense in Hillary's statement? The number she used? Or that "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" does not represent America? I would like to think we are idealistic enough to agree that "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" does not, in fact, represent American ideals and values.

It's obvious Clinton isn't worrying about a large segment of the population, either. She is broadbrushing Trump supporters, and calling them deplorable. Not a very inclusive lady, setting us up for more years of division and hypocrisy.

Relapse wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To go back to the "Deplorable" Trump supporters point, The Economist did some research into it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-8?cid1=cust/ddnew/n/n/n/20160913n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/UK/email&etear=dailydispatch

The TL/DR is that the stats actually do make them look pretty deplorable, but you shouldn't always trust the stats.

So Hillary was wrong when she said half, it should of been more like 2/3rds

See, to me, Romney's offense was basically stating it wasn't his job to worry about a chunk of the populace, not the number he used or how he described them.
What is the offense in Hillary's statement? The number she used? Or that "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" does not represent America? I would like to think we are idealistic enough to agree that "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" does not, in fact, represent American ideals and values.

It's obvious Clinton isn't worrying about a large segment of the population, either. She is broadbrushing Trump supporters, and calling them deplorable. Not a very inclusive lady, setting us up for more years of division and hypocrisy.

Not all of them, just half of them. So that's like 22.7% of Americans, which is less than 47%, so it's kinda okay.

So I just saw Trump's CNBC interview this morning. What really shocked me at the end of it is that no-one is shocked anymore.

In the interview Trump said he didn't invest in the stock market... this was a lie. Trump owns several million in stock. He straight up lied about his personal finances.

In the interview Trump complained that interest rates were too low, and that Yellen was just doing this to help Obama. This shows a complete ignorance of how the Fed works and why.

And then he rounded it off by calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontus. So you have a major party presidential candidate using a racial attack on a sitting senator.

And none of this is news, and to an extent I understand why. "Trump reaffirms that he is grossly ignorant of the operations of US government, and is also a really gak human being" is nothing new.

 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.

The twist in the tail, of course, is that Trump has actually gathered a lot of racist votes to his cause.

Around 48% of Trump supporters think black people are more violent than white people, and almost as many think black people are more criminal. 40% of Trump supporters think black people are more lazy than white people.

70% of Trump supporters believe that Trump's comments on Mexican illegal immigrants being rapists and criminals was "basically right". About half of Trump supporters believed illegal immigration increased crime.

43% of Trump supporters agreed with his complaint of unfair treatment from Judge Curiel. So they support what Paul Ryan described as "the textbook example of a racist comment".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
We're talking illegal immigration. There is a difference. One crime more is a higher rate than the US agreed to.

Crime isn't measured in totality, but as a percentage of the whole population. Illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crime than legal citizens, and as such the rate of crime, and therefore the likelihood of each individual being the victim of crime, decreases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Byrd was a Klan Dragon and supported the Clintons. Are the Clintons racist? NBP supported Obama. Is Obama racist? Media harping that a candidate disavow others is a tactic. They did not harp on Obama to disavow the terrorist murder Bill Ayers.

Claiming Bill Ayers is a murderer is stupid. The only deaths he was even peripherally involved in were when some of his fellow idiot terrorists blew themselves up.

And the bigger issue with your comment above is that Clintons never played on Byrd's former KKK position to win votes. Obama didn't even comment on Bill Ayers or make a play for the '70s revolutionary idiot' demographic. Whereas Trump has played for the racists from day 1 of his primary campaign. So yeah, when guys like David Duke come on board it isn't hard to see how and why.

Calling on Trump to disavow Duke is a tactic, definitely. They're trying to split his supporter base, force Trump to pick between his racist supporters and Republican loyalists who at this point are still holding their nose and voting Trump. But at least this time the tactic has meaning, because Duke's support really is driven by key parts of the Trump campaign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And the point I made in response to Frazzled was that he was generalizing while denouncing the evils of generalizing.

Which, of course, was the problem with Clinton's statement. She was criticising his supporters for being racist, sexist etc... but she was being, in her own words, "grossly generalistic". Which is actually the same damn problem.

She really is a crappy campaigner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Actually... there's been quite a few (D) members who does this...

Is true. It is certainly a thing done by the left, and to some extent Democratic leaders, to call people out for racism either to shut them down, or take a morally superior position in a debate.

It's basically the disfunction of modern race relations. The left thinks the game is to catch people who are saying something that could be taken as racist. The right thinks the point of the game is to avoid being called racist.

This shuts down useful conversations about race and integration. It makes many people resentful when they are lectured for being racist instead of being invited in to a constructive conversation, and it means race issues continue to fester.

Which opens the door for a lying, racist piece of crap like Donald Trump to walk on to the national stage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its because you are in Sweden and thus ignorant of what his position was in the Klan and what it means that I won't call you out on it. We'll just note that, given his age and status, he probably had a hand in at least one lynching in his time, and maybe a nice bombing or two.

Wow. It's pretty weird that you can get in trouble on this forum for calling someone a rude word, but it's okay to accuse random people of lynching black people.

Just to spell it out to the casual reader;
1) No-one has ever accused Robert Byrd of being involved in or even having knowledge of a lynching or any other form of race violence.
2) Byrd was celebrated by the NAACP, on his death they said "Byrd became a champion for civil rights and liberties".
3) Fraz is making up some crazy, ridiculous gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
This example is used to highlight the double-standards that exists in politics.

Robert Byrd as a Republican would've never been able to have much political success as he had as a career Democratic politician.

Yeah, if a Republican was loaded down with a shockingly racist record, I reckon the the best they could possibly hope for would be the Republican Presidential Candidate in 2016.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
It's obvious Clinton isn't worrying about a large segment of the population, either. She is broadbrushing Trump supporters, and calling them deplorable. Not a very inclusive lady, setting us up for more years of division and hypocrisy.

Actually, she said she wasn't going to try for half of the Trump supporters, but was going to try and win over the other half. Which is actually less division, and more pie in the sky dreaming - if she ran a perfect campaign from here shouldn't win over 5% of those voters.

http://boingboing.net/2016/09/13/trump-newsweek-eichenwald.html

“If he wins, his many overseas deals would create a national security nightmare.” That's the tease on the cover of this week's edition of Newsweek, which contains a bombshell Kurt Eichenwald report detailing presidential candidate Donald Trump's financial conflicts of interest.

Eichenwald is also digging into other sensitive information regarding Trump's medical history.


Mediaite covers the anticipation among journalists for a reveal that Eichenwald said would change the campaign.

Does the Newsweek piece include some big reveal about Donald Trump's mental health history? Eichenwald tweeted the statement earlier today, then yanked it:

.. uh huh.

I guess the Clinton camp wants to have some fun conspiracy theories too.

I'd be more concerned with the conflicts of interest bit than a nervous episode 26 years ago.

I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.

Whether Trump had to see a doctor about an anxiety attack a quarter century ago is small potatos comparitively, IMO.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.

And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.

 gorgon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.

And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.

I mean it is easy to see, look at some of the posters in this thread they ignore it just and rage post grrr clinton grrr instead

 Ustrello wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.

And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.

I mean it is easy to see, look at some of the posters in this thread they ignore it just and rage post grrr clinton grrr instead

Dude.

*I'm* upset of the DNC hack, as ALL AMERICANS ought to be really concern over possible foreign power influence over our election process.

If it *is* the Russians doing this, I don't think it's simply they're wanting Trump (or generic Republicans) to win. They'd be doing this to erode voter's confidence in our election process.

...and that's a very, VERY bad thing imo.

First order of business is to affirm that it is, indeed, the Russia. Then, the public needs to be informed.

For the life of me, I don't know what we can do?

Build a NATO base in Ukraine? (no)

So... what's the appropriate response?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I guess the Clinton camp wants to have some fun conspiracy theories too.

Y'know, it actually does kind of fit though. From what I've seen of his interviews during that timeframe, Trump wasn't as...brash as he is now.

People who have nervous breakdowns and get institutionalized some times come out of the experience a lot more bombastic than they were before.

 Ustrello wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.

And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.

I mean it is easy to see, look at some of the posters in this thread they ignore it just and rage post grrr clinton grrr instead

I honestly think people want to bury their heads in the sand to the very possibility of a US Presidential candidate who may very well intend to place Russian interests ahead of US interests, if those Russian interests serve his personal interests or those of his family.

People just don't want to believe that this could be so.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.

And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.

I mean it is easy to see, look at some of the posters in this thread they ignore it just and rage post grrr clinton grrr instead

I honestly think people want to bury their heads in the sand to the very possibility of a US Presidential candidate who may very well intend to place Russian interests ahead of US interests, if those Russian interests serve his personal interests or those of his family.

People just don't want to believe that this could be so.

Nah, it has everything to do with capitalism.

Trump's interests are purely capitalistic. He's helping the Russians live the American Dream!