Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 04, 2016, 01:12:17 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 40
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 23, 2016, 09:09:43 am
I don't know if Donald Trump is, deep down, someone with an active hatred of other races/ethnicities. What I do know is that he ostensibly has no qualms about running a presidential campaign that is clearly fanning the flames of racism and religious intolerance. For me, that is over the line.
How is he running a racist campaign??   
Religious intolerance?    You must be talking about that Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck ticket?
That's what I've been trying to figure out.  How do they jump to that conclusion?

I think a lot of it is, they think his supporters, the party generally, and the country (other than them) are racist, so Trump is pandering to people other than them, so he is running a racist campaign. 

You have to have some sort of thought process like that. 
Also, anything not P.C. is racist to some.   
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 22, 2016, 09:27:20 pm
---
This is what the criminals from the article said.  They're not my words, they're from the article.  I am blaming Trump for inciting racial violence because that is what he is doing.  I'm providing sources and articles detailing these examples.  This is pretty straightforward stuff.  I'm getting the feeling that you're being purposefully obtuse here.

Do you know anything about south boston?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6zhqOcfqQA
When Matt Damon does the same thing was that trumps fault ?  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Y6QvIdCBY
If he brought up Trump in court instead of "Proverbs from the Plymouth Pulpit"
would you be making the same case?
I'm not being Obtuse I just have this thing where occasionally I like people to base what they are saying on reality.  
You've produced a race-baiting agitator and two thugs from south boston... These people would be in fights if Donald Trump didn't exist, thus your thesis that Trump incited them to racial violence is complete crap, unless you actually have something (else).  Which I would be willing to see as I am not a Trump supporter.    



There's a great deal of irony in you denigrating the whole population of South Boston to further your agenda and argument.  It's what Donald Trump has done to many different groups of people, including immigrants and Muslims.  I can tell you're a lost cause.  You basically see eye-to-eye with Trump on the validity of sweeping generalizations.  
Apparently:
you (don't) know what irony means
I denigrated all of south boston
I have an agenda
an open mind is a "lost cause"
any generalization is "sweeping"
Any PART of a population is "the whole population"  

...of course all of these things you said aren't true.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 22, 2016, 08:23:50 pm
---
This is what the criminals from the article said.  They're not my words, they're from the article.  I am blaming Trump for inciting racial violence because that is what he is doing.  I'm providing sources and articles detailing these examples.  This is pretty straightforward stuff.  I'm getting the feeling that you're being purposefully obtuse here.

Do you know anything about south boston?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6zhqOcfqQA
When Matt Damon does the same thing was that trumps fault ?  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Y6QvIdCBY
If he brought up Trump in court instead of "Proverbs from the Plymouth Pulpit"
would you be making the same case?
I'm not being Obtuse I just have this thing where occasionally I like people to base what they are saying on reality.  
You've produced a race-baiting agitator and two thugs from south boston... These people would be in fights if Donald Trump didn't exist, thus your thesis that Trump incited them to racial violence is complete crap, unless you actually have something (else).  Which I would be willing to see as I am not a Trump supporter.    

4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 22, 2016, 07:37:08 pm
Since we can't read Trump's mind--then we can't definitively know his actual views on race.
Given that, we are left to interpret his actions and public statements.  The public record has shown that he's a racist that has incited racial violence and xenophobia.  I see no reason to believe he's doesn't actually hold these views.
Did I miss something?
What could you possibly be talking about?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-confrontation/
Just a sample
At first I thought you had a really good point, but if you think about it for 5 seconds...
I mean an agitator that is a member of a group that actually incites racial violence almost as part of it's mission (black lives matter) managed to agitate people at a private event -- he was trying to get what he got.  
Do you have something better? That was almost good.
I think my first article should suffice, but since you asked nicely here's another instance that took 5 seconds to find on Google:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/19/homeless/iTagewS4bnvBKWxxPvFcAJ/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter
I can't believe you don't realize that Trump is dangerous for the people he's demonizing.
This is amazing, That would have been an example of something if not for the first two words of the headline:  "South Boston"
2 guys start a fight in "South Boston" wasn't Trumps fault the last 10,000 times, but now it is. 

I guess talking about illegals is your dehumanizing, but I've always been fascinated when the left starts calling people "dangerous".

Whenever Pat Buchanan (on MSNBC) would say something like "shouldn't we pay some attention to the well being of white middle class people?" or "Do people lose their rights when they are white male middle class?"  Every employee of MSNBC would automatically say "Pat that kind of thought is DANGEROUS!"  ...they would never explain why.

I understand if you think Trump is a buffoon, but Pat wasn't, he just raised valid points and debated politely and logically.  The response was the same though hysterics from the left.  P.B. was about the least dangerous guy in the world. 
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 22, 2016, 07:10:08 pm
You have to look at Trump's statements in context and as a whole. Trump paints all Mexican immigrants with a broad brush, claiming that they are by and large rapists and murderers. And he says that children of immigrants aren't real Americans regardless of what the 14th Amendment says. And he hints that all of his opponents with hispanic surnames are ineligible to be president. When you put all that together, yes, you can infer a motive.

But I was focusing on his "ban all muslims" platform. He wants to impose a religious test for travel to America, a blanket ban of all those who practice Islam. Throughout human history pretty much anyone who has painted a billion people with a broad brush like that has been a racist.
Ok, I can see that a little here a little there adds up to something argument.  
The thing I have a problem with is when you look at the individual things, their is often NOTHING there.  So, when you assume all the pieces in your mosaic have something to them (when they don't) you exaggerate everything many times over.

Your Examples:
1)Trump paints all Mexican immigrants with a broad brush, claiming that they are by and large rapists and murderers.
2)he says that children of immigrants aren't real Americans regardless of what the 14th Amendment says.
3) he hints that all of his opponents with hispanic surnames are ineligible to be president.

Your Examples De-sensationalized
1) Trump talks about illegal immigrants...  he points out that they commit crimes... which is true.
2) He raises legal arguments about the 14th amendment that are sound regardless of how you feel about them.
3) I know about the Cruz thing, are you implying something about Rubio ? (I don't know about that).  
He raises another constitutional issue with *some* basis.

...nothing is there unless you are trying to fit into a racist narrative ahead of time.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 22, 2016, 06:49:41 pm
Since we can't read Trump's mind--then we can't definitively know his actual views on race.
Given that, we are left to interpret his actions and public statements.  The public record has shown that he's a racist that has incited racial violence and xenophobia.  I see no reason to believe he's doesn't actually hold these views.
Did I miss something?
What could you possibly be talking about?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-confrontation/
Just a sample
At first I thought you had a really good point, but if you think about it for 5 seconds...
I mean an agitator that is a member of a group that actually incites racial violence almost as part of it's mission (black lives matter) managed to agitate people at a private event -- he was trying to get what he got. 
Do you have something better? That was almost good.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 22, 2016, 05:35:29 pm
Since we can't read Trump's mind--then we can't definitively know his actual views on race.

Given that, we are left to interpret his actions and public statements.  The public record has shown that he's a racist that has incited racial violence and xenophobia.  I see no reason to believe he's doesn't actually hold these views.
Did I miss something?
What could you possibly be talking about?
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 22, 2016, 04:37:15 pm
To everyone saying, "No, he just pretends to be," can you explain how that makes it less racist? When you denigrate another race for your benefit at their expense, it's racism regardless of whether you're doing out of sincerely held beliefs or out of opportunism.

And yes, I know Islam is a religion and not a race, but it's highly correlated with race, and Trump is seizing on a sense of "otherness" to stoke the flames of hatred and scapegoat a group of people because they look different than his supporters. I guess it'd be more accurate to call him a bigot, but I'm not gonna split hairs here.
This is kind of what I'm trying to understand.
You have this vague boilerplate "otherness", "stoke the flames of hatred" based on nothing or very little and than you jump to yelling "racist".

How do you make that jump?

Example:
Trump says : illegal immigration is a problem, it causes a lot of harm, we need to fix it.
'Jumpers' say: Trump is a racist, he hates Mexicans, and he's ginning up blind hatred of others.

...doesn't your brain consider other responses?  I mean that is so non linear, unless that is your response to everything you disagree with. 
 
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 22, 2016, 04:01:37 pm
To those that say yes,
I'm wondering why you would say that exactly.
He might make people feel bad or feel offended, but that isn't racism, that is being politically incorrect.
To many seem to think non-PC automatically equals racist.
#1
"Casino bosses hid black employees ‘in the back’ when Donald Trump arrived, ex-worker says"
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/casino-bosses-hid-black-employees-in-the-back-when-donald-trump-arrived-ex-worker-says/
#2
"Donald Trump Was Once Sued By Justice Department For Not Renting To Blacks"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/donald-trump-blacks-lawsuit_n_855553.html

I appreciate the response, but after spending the time reading the links I'm more confused.

link 1 has a guy remembering somethingNOT done by Trump in the 1980's .
link 2 details dozens of things Trump did to HELP minorities contrasted with some extremely weak and improbable "wrongs"  ...most of which get inappropriately thrown at every business in the country.
  
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: KING TRUMP declares victory in MI/NY GE!!! on: February 22, 2016, 03:37:52 pm
Trump effect in Pennsylvania is kind of interesting and super important.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Trump racist? on: February 22, 2016, 03:30:13 pm
To those that say yes,
I'm wondering why you would say that exactly.
He might make people feel bad or feel offended, but that isn't racism, that is being politically incorrect.
To many seem to think non-PC automatically equals racist.
Also,
Same crowd seems to think nationalist is automatically xenophobe.

It has always boggled my mind how SO MANY people are anti-nationalist, but I don't automatically start calling those people america haters or traitors.  
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What would happen if Hillary Clinton were to be indicted? on: February 15, 2016, 07:42:56 pm
She wouldn't drop out. It wouldn't have much effect on the race.
The timeline probably wouldn't work out this way, but imagine the split screen of her in court as a defendant and Bernie at a huge rally.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What would happen if Hillary Clinton were to be indicted? on: February 15, 2016, 05:52:14 pm
Sorry, Dems, but if this happens, Sanders is your nominee, and you'll be pinning your hopes on a 74-year-old socialist who doesn't comb his hair.

You think Sanders supporters would go down quietly at a convention where their guy won the delegate majority but the establishment is trying to nominate someone else?

This is why I quoted the mention of O'Malley - since he only suspended his campaign instead of actually withdrawing it, he won't be taken off any state ballots, and he met most of the filiing deadlines. He could easily re-enter, run as the "anti-socialist", and might even win.
Logically, O'Malley would be the answer because of the filling deadlines, but the DNC could change their own rules (this would be tricky state by state I know)... That would typically outrage people affiliated with a non-corrupt organization, but we are talking about the democrats.
14  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Wisconsin Megathread: 2014 Aftermath and 2016 Senate Speculation on: March 05, 2015, 07:14:01 pm
Feingold lost because he was a bad Senator and Johnson ran one of the best campaigns ever.  I wonder if Johnson can replicate some of that 2010 perfection.  It is hard to tell because Johnson isn't a politician and has acted as such since he won and he may have been the perfect man at the perfect time, not a amazing campaigner ...at anytime.   
15  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Can the Federal Government get rid of or dissolve Native American reservations? on: March 04, 2015, 08:41:51 pm
Dose the U.S. "semi-sovereigns" system have more similarities to A) various British arrangements or B) the various sovereignty arrangements that occurred in the "German Lands" for about 1000 years prior to 1871.  So, is it more British or German?       
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: PPP-National: Walker +7 on: March 04, 2015, 04:52:36 pm
Boy, I thought this might turn into a 20 candidate circus, but it's really just Walker v Bush. 

Walker 29%
Bush 22%
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: FL/SC-Gravis: narrow Bush leads over Walker in both states on: March 04, 2015, 04:44:57 pm
Walker v Bush and than everyone else.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: TX-TT/UT: Cruz leads Walker on: March 04, 2015, 04:42:38 pm
Turning into a Walker Bush race.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: 2016 Primary Map Thread on: March 04, 2015, 04:30:38 pm
Turning into:
Top tier: Walker - Bush
2nd Tier: Paul - Christie
3rd Tier: Cruz and the Huckster. 
20  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Will the Republicans retain the Senate after the 2016 Elections? on: November 05, 2014, 11:35:56 am
We shall see, Lisa Madigan or Robin Kelly or Duckwerth will win and Johnson will lose, but the 54/46 majority is tenious


What if Walker is the nominee? Will he lose then?


Johnson is a tough beat.  Besides being more qualified than any dem he'll have a massive warchest ( with personal money to draw)  A dem qualified candidate has to exist, get through a primary, and raise about 25 million dollars.  A presidential year turnout is his ONLY vulnerability   ...dems probably need a really good candidate which they don't have.  Don't embarrass yourself by bringing up Fingold.     
21  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: White Southern Democrats are dead on: November 05, 2014, 11:19:25 am
Meanwhile, Republicans demean those who do not conform to their ideals of a good white person and get shocked when they lose a high turnout race because no minority support.

Christ, why even respond to you? You are the absolutely worst of the Republican Party. It's urchins like you that make it difficult to support anything the GOP stands for in the end.
? what?  demean uninformed mob mentality?  

...yes, I oppose scientifically stupid behavior

...you probably should as well, if you don't already.  



lol

"Scientifically stupid" is probably one of the dumbest phrases I've ever seen coined and yet you thought it was so clever that you put in bold font.

Hilarious.
Don't oppose science. Mob psychology is dangerous stuff.   
22  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: White Southern Democrats are dead on: November 05, 2014, 11:09:33 am
The Presidency of the United States is what  I want. Republicans have done nothing to improve their odds of winning the Presidency.

Also, what the  dude.
...Democrats have always been the plantation party.  I want blacks off the plantation, not sure why you get freaked out all the time. 

Media and "pop"culture are all we're talking about.  Dems haven't won an idea war in 3-5 decades.  The internet is killing off much of the media bias.  Hopefully, by 2016 they won't be able to push an Obama on us . 

You're seeing things that are not there and will be gravely disappointed in 2016. I will just leave it at that.
I see the possibility of a zombie election in 2016!!!   Stop pretending I'm oblivious to the zombies, I get your point!!!!     
23  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: White Southern Democrats are dead on: November 05, 2014, 11:05:59 am
What social policy of the democrats is deeply unpopular? Explain?
Really any social engineering is resented.  Leftists use Political Correctness to force their social policy on people that don't want it or strongly oppose it, which multiplies the resentment.   

The Culture War is generally comprised of:
family and religious values - war on religious institutions and citizens right to exercise religion.   
feminism - This addled failed and dying ideology is dominant among the left.   
gay rights - Gays have never not had rights in my lifetime, The right would welcome a discussion about the merits of gay marriage, but if you are anything short of 'in your face' you are a bigot of some kind.  This issue ties into family and religious values.  Dems demogogy here is unpopular.  - Some of this stuff is getting weird.  Mandatory diversity classes have become dominated by the latest fad of classifying every type of transgenderness or sexual oriantation -- This is obviously a waste of time, but it is often used to attack anyone with independent thoughts or who (rightfully so) resent being forced to be there wasting their time.   
race - The Dems are scary in this area.  You have Maoist indoctrination camps going on were children are forced to empathize their white guilt with each other  -- kids who correctly point out they and their families have nothing to feel guilty about are told "everyone is guilty."     
guns - Dems are widely unpopular on guns, mostly because they are illogical, incoherent, or insane on the issues.  The Constitution is pretty clear, so stop living in a fantasy world.  Also, Urban mayors like to blame guns for their crime problems... so nauseating.   
abortion. - This is a polarizing issue, however Dems have managed to act disgracefully with regard to it.  You can't claim a moral high ground when you are advocating the antithesis of morals.  Why does any regulation of Abortion require hair on fire freak outs from dems? 

Huh
Are you unfamiliar with mainstream Republican talking points, Simfan?
Mainstream facts I wish were in Republican talking points.  
24  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: White Southern Democrats are dead on: November 05, 2014, 11:02:54 am
The Presidency of the United States is what  I want. Republicans have done nothing to improve their odds of winning the Presidency.

Also, what the  dude.
...Democrats have always been the plantation party.  I want blacks off the plantation, not sure why you get freaked out all the time. 

Media and "pop"culture are all we're talking about.  Dems haven't won an idea war in 3-5 decades.  The internet is killing off much of the media bias.  Hopefully, by 2016 they won't be able to push an Obama on us . 
25  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: White Southern Democrats are dead on: November 05, 2014, 10:37:47 am
All those above points that make the Democrats losers in midterms will guarantee their victory in 2016.
Yea, Zombies tend to awake in presidential years.  The problem is Dems need a "Rock Star" to awaken large numbers of zombies and their "Rock Stars" are always inexperienced incompetents, which the country has gotten sick of the last 6 years.  

No, Dems don't need a rockstar to awake them.  Turnout for Presidential elections is consistent, even when Al Bore is the nominee.

Dems have won popular vote in 5 out of last 6 Presidential elections and the one they didn't win in 2004 was won on a campaign of President Bush that featured VIVA BUSH which won 45% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.   GOP seems disinterested in attempting to do that ever again.

Domination of the US House
Control of US Senate:
I Think long term GOP will have an advantage in the US Senate range of 48-to-60ish Seats.
64 of 98 state legislative chambers  
The governor-ships of Illinois, Massachusetts, and freaking Maryland.

...what more do you want?  

GOP is becoming a 45 state party and dems are becoming a 5 state party, yes I agree with you the zombie elections are tough AND demographic blocks require some work in breaking up and I think it will happen - the question is when -- I'd like to see 40%+ of Hispanics and 30%+ of Blacks off the plantation.  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 40


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines