(11-08-2016 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:12 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not to belabor the point, but:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...&tid=ss_fb
It's honestly hard for me to understand people seeing that ad and not noticing all the dog whistles.

A dog whistle is something that is heard only by the dog. The stuff you're talking about is heard by everyone but the dog.

I'm not a Trump supporter and did not vote for him. But the enthusiasm on both sides for exaggerating personal attacks rather than discussing issues is troubling.

Not talking about this particular article, but do you think that dog whistles are not a real thing with regards to racism and bigotry? That racism/bigotry only exist in an overt context?

If by dog whistles, you mean code words, I think the left is turning the terms "Republican" and "right-wing" into dog whistles.

Sure, code words is another way to describe it. But my question wasn't about what was/is a dog whistle, but if they exist. Do you think they do?

Also, in following with your question, what's your interpretation of how "Republican" or "right-wing" is being turned into a dog whistle?

(11-08-2016 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:12 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not to belabor the point, but:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...&tid=ss_fb
It's honestly hard for me to understand people seeing that ad and not noticing all the dog whistles.

A dog whistle is something that is heard only by the dog. The stuff you're talking about is heard by everyone but the dog.

I'm not a Trump supporter and did not vote for him. But the enthusiasm on both sides for exaggerating personal attacks rather than discussing issues is troubling.

Groups that monitor anti-Semitism have condemned the ad and other statements from Trump.

I have talked to many friends who don't see this as exaggerating or making a mountain out of a molehill. They find it sickeningly familiar.

So if you are arguing that it's not an anti-Semitic ad, I give up. I don't know what else he could do without actually saying "the Jews".

But if you do acknowledge the anti-Semitism, then how is pointing it out a "personal attack"? I'd say it's pretty important.

And more to the point, I could do the same thing with Trump and Hispanics.

Or Trump and "the blacks," as he puts it.

Or Muslims.

In all three of those cases he has peddled lies (fake crime stats, myths about Muslims celebrating 9/11 in NJ, lies about vigils for the killer of the Dallas police officers, etc.) in order to stoke hatred and anger toward minority groups.

That is just flat out wrong, and a classic ploy of demagogues and authoritarians and I hope to god today's results show that that's not who we are as a people.

And speaking of personal attacks, I still can't believe Trump won the nomination after his mocking of a disabled reporter. How can a grown adult do something so vile and despicable and still be nominated by a major political party?

I won't even get into the misogyny and sexual assault, as that's been well covered. I could not look my daughters in the eye if I voted for Trump. Not that there was any danger of that.

(11-08-2016 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The stuff you're talking about is heard by everyone but the dog.

Incorrect. The dogs heard that whistle, and came running:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1185191/

(11-08-2016 11:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And speaking of personal attacks, I still can't believe Trump won the nomination after his mocking of a disabled reporter. How can a grown adult do something so vile and despicable and still be nominated by a major political party?

I won't even get into the misogyny and sexual assault, as that's been well covered. I could not look my daughters in the eye if I voted for Trump. Not that there was any danger of that.

Honestly, this is the one thing Trump has done that I think about the most. I don't know, somehow while the overt and subtle misogyny and racism are awful, there is a history of that in politics and it doesn't hold the same weight. Plus, they are pretty easy for supporters to explain away on a number of instances. That's not to excuse or condone them, but they have been present historically.

But this, just look at this gif. Think about this gif.



IMO, it speaks for itself (and I didn't have to bring up that after this Trump, instead of apologizes, said the NYTimes should apologize to him for calling him out).

(11-08-2016 12:06 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The stuff you're talking about is heard by everyone but the dog.

Incorrect. The dogs heard that whistle, and came running:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1185191/

I wouldn't describe an obscure post on an obscure blog as "the dogs [plural] heard that whistle and came running." And the concept behind dog whistle is that only the dog hears it. Here, most of the reaction is from non-dogs. I tend to give very little credence to a non-dog telling me what I, if I am a dog, should listen to and how I should interpret it.

(11-08-2016 12:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:06 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The stuff you're talking about is heard by everyone but the dog.

Incorrect. The dogs heard that whistle, and came running:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1185191/

I wouldn't describe an obscure post on an obscure blog as "the dogs [plural] heard that whistle and came running." And the concept behind dog whistle is that only the dog hears it. Here, most of the reaction is from non-dogs. I tend to give very little credence to a non-dog telling me what I, if I am a dog, should listen to and how I should interpret it.

Wait, you do realize that the example from Stormfront kind of confirms the Dog Whistle?

So Stormfront is pretty much the leading white nationalist meeting place. Per the SPLC: Created by former Alabama Klan boss and long-time white supremacist Don Black in 1995, Stormfront was the first major hate site on the Internet.

And per Stormfront itself: "Our mission is to provide information not available in the controlled news media and to build a community of White activists working for the survival of our people."
— From "Guidelines for Posting," Stormfont.org

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...stormfront

So, the dog whistles are meant to catch the ears of racists, bigots, etc. and go over the head, or be brushed off by people who don't harbor the same feelings. So here is literally a perfect example of a very large white supremacist group picking up on the dog whistles only they can hear. Literally, the dogs heard the whistles and came out running.

(11-08-2016 12:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:06 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The stuff you're talking about is heard by everyone but the dog.

Incorrect. The dogs heard that whistle, and came running:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1185191/

I wouldn't describe an obscure post on an obscure blog as "the dogs [plural] heard that whistle and came running." And the concept behind dog whistle is that only the dog hears it. Here, most of the reaction is from non-dogs. I tend to give very little credence to a non-dog telling me what I, if I am a dog, should listen to and how I should interpret it.

Your complaint that I haven't identified that many dogs does nothing to refute the point. I stuck my google into the one spot (Stormfront.org) that I knew would be receptive to anti-Semitic messaging, and lo and behold the dogs are howling.

But I think I'm seeing where you misunderstood JAAO's assertion. If I'm reading your last sentence correctly, you have interpreted JAAO's statements to be claims that you and other similarly-minded conservatives are drawn to Trump by anti-Semitism. His claim is not that broad, and there is no reason to believe that you are anti-Semitic or that all Republicans are. JAAO's claim is that there exists a significant portion of Trump's base that _is_ anti-Semitic and is drawn to Trump because Trump is knowingly speaking their language. This is supported by the evidence I provided.

And you seem to be niggling over the specifics of the metaphor. Well, let me extend it: just because I'm not a dog and can't hear the whistle, doesn't mean I can't see when one is being used. I do believe that (despite protestations to the contrary) the more-reasonable Trump supporters also know a dog whistle when they see it. And after all these months of Trump's plainspoken racism and intolerance, a good-old fashioned dog whistle is just the non-music to soothe the savage Republican breast. Back to the good old days of "Hey man, I'm not gonna judge you if you're into that, just don't say it out loud."

A touch off-topic, but Stormfront was on my mind because of this fascinating and extremely moving article by Eli Saslow of the Washington Post that a friend posted on FB a few weeks ago:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/...story.html

Matthew Stevenson is a hero.

(11-08-2016 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:06 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The stuff you're talking about is heard by everyone but the dog.

Incorrect. The dogs heard that whistle, and came running:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1185191/

I wouldn't describe an obscure post on an obscure blog as "the dogs [plural] heard that whistle and came running." And the concept behind dog whistle is that only the dog hears it. Here, most of the reaction is from non-dogs. I tend to give very little credence to a non-dog telling me what I, if I am a dog, should listen to and how I should interpret it.

Wait, you do realize that the example from Stormfront kind of confirms the Dog Whistle?

So Stormfront is pretty much the leading white nationalist meeting place. Per the SPLC: Created by former Alabama Klan boss and long-time white supremacist Don Black in 1995, Stormfront was the first major hate site on the Internet.

And per Stormfront itself: "Our mission is to provide information not available in the controlled news media and to build a community of White activists working for the survival of our people."
— From "Guidelines for Posting," Stormfont.org

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...stormfront

So, the dog whistles are meant to catch the ears of racists, bigots, etc. and go over the head, or be brushed off by people who don't harbor the same feelings. So here is literally a perfect example of a very large white supremacist group picking up on the dog whistles only they can hear. Literally, the dogs heard the whistles and came out running.

Suppose a candidate (perhaps Bernie Sanders?) wanted to criticize bankers, and politicians who are in cahoots with bankers, but did not want to (1) be actually anti-Semitic, or (2) be accused of being anti-Semitic. How would he go about that?

(11-08-2016 04:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:06 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The stuff you're talking about is heard by everyone but the dog.

Incorrect. The dogs heard that whistle, and came running:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1185191/

I wouldn't describe an obscure post on an obscure blog as "the dogs [plural] heard that whistle and came running." And the concept behind dog whistle is that only the dog hears it. Here, most of the reaction is from non-dogs. I tend to give very little credence to a non-dog telling me what I, if I am a dog, should listen to and how I should interpret it.

Wait, you do realize that the example from Stormfront kind of confirms the Dog Whistle?

So Stormfront is pretty much the leading white nationalist meeting place. Per the SPLC: Created by former Alabama Klan boss and long-time white supremacist Don Black in 1995, Stormfront was the first major hate site on the Internet.

And per Stormfront itself: "Our mission is to provide information not available in the controlled news media and to build a community of White activists working for the survival of our people."
— From "Guidelines for Posting," Stormfont.org

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...stormfront

So, the dog whistles are meant to catch the ears of racists, bigots, etc. and go over the head, or be brushed off by people who don't harbor the same feelings. So here is literally a perfect example of a very large white supremacist group picking up on the dog whistles only they can hear. Literally, the dogs heard the whistles and came out running.

Suppose a candidate (perhaps Bernie Sanders?) wanted to criticize bankers, and politicians who are in cahoots with bankers, but did not want to (1) be actually anti-Semitic, or (2) be accused of being anti-Semitic. How would he go about that?

I was more speaking about the term Dog Whistle than this individual example in that post.

But I think what you do is use less boogeyman-style language that can lead to that interpretation, and be a bit more intelligent about whose pictures you show. Talk about how large banks, or how regulators, or a specific position did something. But that's just my thoughts, and I really didn't see a ton of anti-semetic language in this ad, but I'm not very well versed in that kind of thing.

But this is the same guy who carelessly put a Star of David infront of money and called Hillary a crook in the same tweet, so I shouldn't expect very much critical thinking on his part about the power of his words.

Just wow, right now...

Partisanship aside:

Somewhere, Elizabeth Warren is both laughing and weeping. She wouldn't have lost to Trump; I don't think Sanders would have either.

As of this post, it is not over for Clinton, but it certainly looks bleak for her.

From a purely strategic perspective, the Democrats allowed the tail to wag the dog and seriously bungled this.

(11-09-2016 12:04 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  Partisanship aside:

Somewhere, Elizabeth Warren is both laughing and weeping. She wouldn't have lost to Trump; I don't think Sanders would have either.

As of this post, it is not over for Clinton, but it certainly looks bleak for her.

From a purely strategic perspective, the Democrats allowed the tail to wag the dog and seriously bungled this.

Tend to agree with you here. Many Americans held their nose and voted Trump because in the end, Hiliary was such a despicable person an wrong for America in innumerable ways. While she could still win this thing it is getting more difficult.

The fascinating and sad-for-America thing is to watch the over-the-air mainstream networks' coverage where almost all of them are completely stunned the contest is even close and made so by the Americans who have been battered and ignored for the last 24 years coming out and saying "enough is enough." The middle class, of ALL backgrounds, traditionally the strength and backbone of America (hint, it's NOT the intellectual elites from small liberal schools) has been almost completely destroyed by the over-regulation combined with the egregious and willful intrusion by Washington know-it-alls from BOTH parties, and with taxes and premiums skyrocketing even those who had swallowed the kool-aid for the left in the past stayed away from a candidate that took their votes and support completely and utterly for granted for her personal glorification while giving absolutely zero back to them.

If Hiliary pulls it out, she will accomplish next to nothing for anyone but herself and her rich insider elite cronies and likely face impeachment threat almost from the get-go. If Trump holds on, he rewrites the rules, but he will lack the solid support of a more traditionally conservative American candidate from thew right.

The good news for everybody if Trump wins would be that Obamacare would be dead and a likely ugly but much more inclusive and fair discussion and fight over healthcare in America would finally take place, as it should have 8 years ago, instead of the completely partisan and ignorant mess that was force-fed down America's throats without so much as a nod of concern to how it would destroy middle and lower-class American homes of all backgrounds and parties.

And, America might not continue to just give away all its citizens' hard work and innovation to foreign governments and despots who hate America and want to destroy American achievement while getting paid off by fools who think they can reason with enemies who will kill women, children and civilians at the drop of a hat without batting an eye.

For those who failed to believe in the impossible, though it was achieved in the most unconventional of ways, with an unconventional personality who had unconventional wisdom that tapped directly into the sentiment of America:

Free at last, free at last, after 24 years, thank God Almighty, we are FREE AT LAST!!! God Bless America!

I'll have a wrapup post on the presidential election sometime in the near future. Until then, I'll just point out that it was obvious on Monday that Trump had a good chance to win.

You could tell this simply by looking at the places Trump and Clinton visited for their final campaign pushes. Clinton went to Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Trump went to those three states plus Michigan and New Hampshire. On the eve of an election, candidates go to the places they think have the tightest races and need an extra boost to try to get over the top. Of the five states listed, four of them went Democratic in 2012; the one that went Republican had about the closest victory margin for the Republican of any state in that election. In other words, the fight was taking place on Democratic turf, and the Democrats were playing defense. Quite noticeable was the absence of Iowa and Ohio from that list. The only conclusion one could draw from that was those two states had been conceded to Trump already. It should also be noted that, had it been suggested a year ago that Pennsylvania and Michigan would be in play on election eve, one would think that the Republican candidate would be in good shape to win.

As it stands now, of those five states, at this point early in the morning at least four look like they'll go to Trump and possibly all five. It's another example of the maxim that you should always look at what they do, not what they say (or what people are saying about them).

One last note: doesn't it seem a bit churlish on the part of Clinton that she called Trump to concede but didn't give a concession speech to her supporters that night? You learn the most about a person's character when she faces adversity....

President Trump! I for one look forward to the return of good manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, trade surplus, and criminal aliens being deported, not to mention the impending defeat of Islamic terrorism. Oh yes, also high economic growth rates as promised. I wish the new president well on these fronts.

I will also enjoy my inevitable tax cut, somewhat to be off set by having my healthcare go back up when I have to go back into the Texas high risk pool (assuming it can come back quickly enough). At least I will shortly be on Medicare, which the new president says he will support I think, although with a Republican Congress who knows?

I will wait to see when Mexico sends the first check for the wall, but I will not hold my breath.

I am not looking forward to more of Rudy, Chris Christy and Newt but what can you do. The pilgrimage of establishment types coming to kiss the ring (and get on the late train, to mix metaphors) will be amusing in a certain perverse way.

The roll back of environmental protection will be less good as for example more coal fired power in Texas will affect air quality in my humble opinion. But at least we will be able to say Merry Christmas. So Merry Christmas Republicans, you are in charge now. Please don't mess it up!

Markets will drop at historic levels today I'm afraid. I hope it doesn't create too many layoffs but it might.

The bottom line is voter turnouts wasn't good enough for Clinton. I realize votes are yet to be counted but as of right now, Trump's voter total is almost 10 million less than what Obama got in 2008 (and I think about 6 million less than his 2012 total?).

Now it's time for Associate Supreme Court Justice Ted Cruz.

First, I voted write-in, and evidently was only one of less than 500 in Harris County on election day to do so. I could not bring myself to vote for someone who frequently lies and their main reason for running was to be President. I could not vote for Trump who was, and is, largely unqualified, and an affront to moral decency (sorry, that's not debatable). Gary Johnson was an unqualified loon. At that point I was too tired to consider Jill Stein . . . but just, . . . .no.

The people at the precinct were clueless (truly) on what I needed to type in to make sure my ballot counted. Had to call the Harris County Clerk to verify that what I typed in was sufficient to have my vote counted.

Watching the national news media (some of whom were literally on the verge of tears at times, some who actually got angry at points in the evening) drove home exactly why Trump won, and why 2004 repeated itself for the Democrats.

1. Hillary. Had the Democrats run Joe Biden, I think they win the Presidency. He has his issues, but he comes across as a decent man. And a decent candidate beats Trump (and by decent, I mean someone who exhibits regularly the attributes of basic human decency). It's why Bernie Sanders DESERVED the Democratic nomination. It was not because Hillary was a woman. It is because she is the consummate career politician, and her public/private persona and her willingness to say and do anything to satisfy ambition could not be hidden after 24 years in the limelight. No one trusted her, and the extent to which the DNC took measures to assist her win the nomination was appalling. For some reasons, the Democrats thought that only Trump voters would be holding their nose while voting. Those on the far, far left must be true believers indeed.
2. East Coast Media. I'm not sure I would call it bias, because Trump was such a flawed candidate on many levels. But it was obvious they favored Trump. Anyone who watched the ABC election returns and couldn't see the anguish and disbelief throughout the night and thinks there wasn't favoritism is kidding themselves. The issue is that the media came to their conclusions early and frankly decided that there is only one possible 'right answer' and that everyone else saw it also. They don't see how it comes across: we know better, we live in a state (or DC) which is going to go overwhelmingly Democrat, we surround ourselves only with people who think like us, and we are going to help guide you to make the right decision.
3. Hillary had no identifiable agenda or plan. Nothing that stood out. Whereas Trump had "Make America Great Again" which the Dems mocked, at least it was identifiable to a constituency the Dems have ignored (and I'm not talking about the 1/2 of 1% that some here are worried about). Again, Hillary has been at this so long that I think the real agenda was transparent to everyone, or at least this is what they saw: on a personal note "2016: It's My Turn" or pandering "OK, We've had an African-American President, Let's Check Another Box"
Those are not good reasons, unless you're part of the DNC. We WILL have a woman president someday, but it will be someone who is elected because they have an identifiable message, or at least a message that translates outside the DNC.
4. The talking heads kept noting that Trump was overwhelmingly winning with non-college white males. It was clearly stated as an indictment. It's the Dems dog whistle for racist morons.
They would then turn around and lament "What do they think Trump is really going to be able to do for them" On ABC, this was the refrain over and over. There only answer was that he represented change.
What they failed to grasp is that the fact they view Trumps appeal to that demographic (which is quite large) as an indictment, and because the far left Dems concentrated on the coast do view them flyover America as populated by 'deplorables' is exactly why they voted Trump.
They kept asking what Trump was going to do for them. What they should've stopped and asked themselves is what Hillary has EVER given that group besides lip service. When she used the term "deplorable", she wasn't addressing any constituency of Trump's (and he got Latino votes, and other demographic votes, at least enough to win) other than 'less than college educated', white, male America.

Not a one of the talking heads stated how the Dems would help this constituency improve their standard of living.

In fact, they went to so far as to say "What will these voters do when nothing changes for them?"

Basically, this is their lot in life, to be left behind, it's their deserved fate (implied - it's their own fault, they're deplorable after all)

If the Democrats invested the time and effort that LBJ put into the Great Society into that demographic (and not necessarily Great Society programs - maybe a focus on better education and access to college - Bernie hit on that big time. But it seemed like the DNC's version of that was targeting making it affordable for the kids already there or who had amassed student debt. The Trump demographic certainly didn't feel it was directed at them.

I was shocked. After 2004, I should not be. The DNC's ability to misread large swaths of the electorate is well documented.

For weeks I had been saying that Trump was the only Republican Hillary could beat.

Now the reality may have been that Hillary is the one Democrat that Trump could beat (albeit Kaine was even worse, IMO).