(11-15-2016 12:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Could be. I for one hope his principles are flexible, as I disagree with him on a lot of things. I hope he goes more pragmatic than a stupid wall or blanket deportation.

FTR. here is the OO plan. Part one: Allow a 60 day amnesty for those here illegally to start the process to become legal in some recognized way. Once this process is started, deportation is off the table for them, as long as they continue the process. Allow a process for the kids brought and raised here to apply for a legal status (not neccesarily citizenship)
Part Two: After the 60 days is up, zero tolerance for new illegals and any old illegals who did not bother or care to become legal. Beef up the Border Patrol and support them.
Part three: Require employers to make a 20% withholding for all those who are in the process of becoming legal. Of course, they can get most of it back when they file their taxes.

I am sure this would need a lot of tweaks, but i want to be fair to those already here without just giving up on immigration enforcement.

Here's a case where many of the pundits on the left just cannot stop themselves from yelling out racism and woman hater as they have been conditioned to and trained by the Left, instead of looking at the actual issues themselves:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/mark-judge/chris...ave-border

Quote:MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "Did she ever say stop illegal hiring in this country? Stop illegal immigration? Did she ever say it?

After some back and forth Matthews said, "I think the country's against illegal immigration. I've never heard of a country that didn’t have a border, didn't have a work permit, and didn't get serious about it. The democrats want the votes...I think that Trump took advantage of it, and I don't think that it's racism."

(11-15-2016 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 12:17 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Lining up Soros, Yellen and whoever else it was in a sinister video is subtle, but the Trump campaign has unapologetic-ally played to both sides way too many times for there to be no intent, IMHO.

If you're trying to convince me that Trump is anti-Semitic, it's going to take a lot more than putting Soros and Yellen and whoever else in a video. I know Soros is Jewish, but only because of the stories about how he ratted out his fellow Jews to the Nazis. I had no idea Yellen was Jewish, and frankly couldn't care less. I can't even remember who whoever else was, let alone whether he/she is Jewish.

People are pissed off at Soros, not because he is Jewish, but because he is an evil human being who seems to be dedicated to destroying western economies. People are pissed off at Yellen, not because she is Jewish, but because she represents the establishment that so many feel has screwed them.

This is the problem that the left doesn't seem to get. The more you try to marginalize legitimate complaints by passing them off as racism or sexism or xenophobia or whatever, the more you are going to piss off the people who are complaining. There are legitimate people who have legitimate and honestly-held complaints and who are tired of being marginalized, and they turned against you big time in this last election. And as long as you maintain your holier-than-thou condescension, all you're going to accomplish is pissing them off even more.

Bingo

(11-15-2016 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is the problem that the left doesn't seem to get. . . . And as long as you maintain your holier-than-thou condescension, all you're going to accomplish is pissing them off even more.

One could be forgiven for concluding that maintaining holier-than-thou condescension is not just the tactic, but the goal.

(11-15-2016 11:30 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 11:05 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 03:08 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  George HW Bush was the last Republican to become president winning the popular vote.

Actually W won the popular vote in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2004



w

If you will notice --- JAAO was *VERY* careful and particular in how he phrased this. The term he used was "become". GWB did not "become" president in 2004. He was re-elected.

I almost bit on the same troll line. Hate to say, but this type of phrase parsage reeks of "depends on what is is".....

LOL, yes, I was trying to conceal my top secret knowledge of the 2004 election.

Incumbents are generally favored in presidential elections, all else being equal. (At least according to conventional wisdom - but conventional wisdom has taken quite a beating lately...) But we've had three presidents this century, all three initially elected without an incumbent running. The Democratic candidate won the popular vote all three times. The EC elected the Republican two of those three times.

If that keeps happening, I think it's an issue for the health of our democracy, and would be if it was happening in the other direction as well.

I disagree. Leaving out the fact that W won the popular vote 2004 buttresses your argument.

As for the Electoral College, the very reason the Founders created the College was to limit the power of large states to control election outcomes. The only reason Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because they ran up huge majorities in deep blue states like California. It's very unlikely that the Constitution will be amended to abolish the College.

(11-15-2016 01:52 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 11:30 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 11:05 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 03:08 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  George HW Bush was the last Republican to become president winning the popular vote.

Actually W won the popular vote in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2004



w

If you will notice --- JAAO was *VERY* careful and particular in how he phrased this. The term he used was "become". GWB did not "become" president in 2004. He was re-elected.

I almost bit on the same troll line. Hate to say, but this type of phrase parsage reeks of "depends on what is is".....

LOL, yes, I was trying to conceal my top secret knowledge of the 2004 election.

Incumbents are generally favored in presidential elections, all else being equal. (At least according to conventional wisdom - but conventional wisdom has taken quite a beating lately...) But we've had three presidents this century, all three initially elected without an incumbent running. The Democratic candidate won the popular vote all three times. The EC elected the Republican two of those three times.

If that keeps happening, I think it's an issue for the health of our democracy, and would be if it was happening in the other direction as well.

I disagree. Leaving out the fact that W won the popular vote 2004 buttresses your argument.

As for the Electoral College, the very reason the Founders created the College was to limit the power of large states to control election outcomes. The only reason Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because they ran up huge majorities in deep blue states like California. It's very unlikely that the Constitution will be amended to abolish the College.

Oddly enough, the electoral college was also put in place to keep a bunch of idiots from choosing the president.

Check out Federalist Paper 68.

The key quote:

Quote:It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations...
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-rea...l-college/

On a somewhat different subject, now that it's "after the election" Trump will release his tax returns like he said, right?

(11-15-2016 01:52 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  I disagree. Leaving out the fact that W won the popular vote 2004 buttresses your argument.

OK, well you've corrected it now. Doesn't change the point.

(11-15-2016 01:52 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  The only reason Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because they ran up huge majorities in deep blue states like California.

So what? Gore and Clinton won the popular vote because more people voted for them. That may not be how we elect presidents, but I don't understand this line of argument. Should Californians votes count less?

(11-15-2016 01:52 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 11:30 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 11:05 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 03:08 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  George HW Bush was the last Republican to become president winning the popular vote.

Actually W won the popular vote in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2004



w

If you will notice --- JAAO was *VERY* careful and particular in how he phrased this. The term he used was "become". GWB did not "become" president in 2004. He was re-elected.

I almost bit on the same troll line. Hate to say, but this type of phrase parsage reeks of "depends on what is is".....

LOL, yes, I was trying to conceal my top secret knowledge of the 2004 election.

Incumbents are generally favored in presidential elections, all else being equal. (At least according to conventional wisdom - but conventional wisdom has taken quite a beating lately...) But we've had three presidents this century, all three initially elected without an incumbent running. The Democratic candidate won the popular vote all three times. The EC elected the Republican two of those three times.

If that keeps happening, I think it's an issue for the health of our democracy, and would be if it was happening in the other direction as well.

I disagree. Leaving out the fact that W won the popular vote 2004 buttresses your argument.

As for the Electoral College, the very reason the Founders created the College was to limit the power of large states to control election outcomes. The only reason Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because they ran up huge majorities in deep blue states like California. It's very unlikely that the Constitution will be amended to abolish the College.

In a similar vein, there is a way to bypass this that is being pursued, *and* it doesnt run afoul of the core concept in the EC -- that is the individual states each determine how to award their electors.

The movement is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where each state that enacts it awards their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote. No jiggering of the constitution required since each state has employed its own judgement on the awarding of their electoral votes.

The compact becomes active if and when the states signing up for it comprise a majority of the electoral votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_P...te_Compact

The funny thing is when you read which states have voted to join, it is a roll call of the nothing but the deepest blue states.

=============

Sorry Austin Owl, but when I see a phrase that is parsed as carefully as the one I commented on, my "weird stuff being thrown here" antennae become active. Too many years many years ago of having to deal with artfully constructed phrases in depositions (yep im a scum sucking lawyer) has made me default to that state.

Not anything personal, but something that is seems to be artfully crafted to be true but (imo of course) misleading at the same time activates those terrible habits from time to time. This political season has set those antennae ablaze with use....

No offense intended and apologies

(11-15-2016 02:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 01:52 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  The only reason Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because they ran up huge majorities in deep blue states like California.

So what? Gore and Clinton won the popular vote because more people voted for them. That may not be how we elect presidents, but I don't understand this line of argument. Should Californians votes count less?

Actually in weird way that is what the founders intended. Along with the singular fact that California *only* has the same number of senators as Wyoming.

Balance between consensus rule and runaway regionalism was a big factor in how they reached that accord. Seems very appropriate today as much as it was then, imo. But then again I tend to like the implication of regional and state's rights now and again (and meant not in a white pointy sheet hat mode, as that term is used by many liberals these days in another version of the reverse dog-whistle....)

(11-15-2016 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 12:17 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Lining up Soros, Yellen and whoever else it was in a sinister video is subtle, but the Trump campaign has unapologetic-ally played to both sides way too many times for there to be no intent, IMHO.

If you're trying to convince me that Trump is anti-Semitic, it's going to take a lot more than putting Soros and Yellen and whoever else in a video. I know Soros is Jewish, but only because of the stories about how he ratted out his fellow Jews to the Nazis.

No, I'm not... I don't have enough evidence to really make that case.

I am just saying that there are a lot of people that anti-semitism does appeal to, and I think the Trump campaign deliberately exploited that. I think it is in line with the "mexican rapist" and "muslim ban".

(11-15-2016 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I had no idea Yellen was Jewish, and frankly couldn't care less. I can't even remember who whoever else was, let alone whether he/she is Jewish.

Good for you (seriously)... I didn't know she was Jewish either. But, there are those that believe in the cosmopolitan elite (Jews) that secretly run the world, and they are certainly encouraged by singling out Jews in that kind of ad. As an isolated incident, it wouldn't concern me, but the campaign seems to have mainstreamed the appeal to the neo-nazi crowd.

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

By using imagery of Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the Koch Brothers.

Not that any of them are involved in banking, but non of Sanders other political points are particularly cogent.

(11-09-2016 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 02:27 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Secondly, the idea that it's "way, way less than 50%" is debatable, too.

Quote:Much like Trump’s alleged opposition to the Iraq War, this not an impossible claim to investigate. We know, for instance, some nearly 60 percent of Trump’s supporters hold “unfavorable views” of Islam, and 76 percent support a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We know that some 40 percent of Trump’s supporters believe blacks are more violent, more criminal, lazier, and ruder than whites. Two-thirds of Trump’s supporters believe the first black president in this country’s history is not American. These claim are not ancillary to Donald Trump’s candidacy, they are a driving force behind it.

Thanks, OONH, I had meant to add that paragraph.
Owl69: She did _not_ mean "all". That was clear from the paragraph I quoted, where she listed the specific characteristics she found deplorable. It's even more clear from the follow-up paragraph that OONH posted.
Is it fair that the basket of regulars is seen negatively by liberals simply due to its association and shared support with the basket of deplorables? My opinion - yes. If you want to debate that fairness question then fine, let's do it. But the facts aren't up for debate: 1) the deplorable subset exists, and 2) Hillary clearly called them out as a subset.

It doesn't really matter what she said after "deplorables", because no-one that matters ever heard it. It doesn't matter who the targets of her comments were because she was foisted on her own petard. Do you really think the 50% in the basket of non-deplorable Trump supporters cared a whit about which basket she intended them to be in? Her comments may have made some giggle, there may be a few policy wonks who found something interesting in her comments, but it almost certainly gave her opponent's supporters extra motivation to vote, and it almost certainly turned away people that might have otherwise considered voting for her.

Her wording betrayed an arrogance toward the electorate, and is the kind of self-inflicted wound that everyone expected Trump to make rather than Hillary.

(11-15-2016 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 11:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we won't convince each other. I will continue to regard the left as classist snobs, and you can continue to regard me and my friends as morally bankrupt Yahoos.

I don't believe I've said that about you or your friends, but it seems important to you to believe I (or other 'leftists') did, so OK.

Not you personally, but it is clear the party you support and defend does. Been that way a long time. Tired of it. Apparently, so are millions of others.

Imagine, a liberal telling me my feelings are invalid. Important to "believe"? Is that dismissive, or what?

Not just the Democrats who were calling this out. Plenty of Republicans saw the racism, xenophobia and sexism that he was peddling. They also saw who it was attracting.

-----
Lindsey Graham:
"Here's what you're buying. He's a race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot. He doesn't represent my party. He doesn't represent the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for... He's the ISIL man of the year."

Jeb Bush:
"Donald Trump should retract his comments, not defend them. There is no place for racism in the GOP, or this country."

Republican Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin:
"His comments over the weekend are authenticating what I believe is the man's character. Something that walks like a duck, talks like a duck, is likely to be a duck. If you continue to say what I believe are racist statements, you're likely to be a racist."

Rick Perry:
"But the fact is I’ve said very clearly that Donald Trump does not represent the Republican Party. I was offended by his remarks. Listen, Hispanics in America and Hispanics in Texas, from the Alamo to Afghanistan, have been extraordinary people, citizens of our country and of our state. They have served nobly. And to paint with that broad a brush that Donald Trump did is — I mean he’s going to have to defend those remarks. I never will. And I will stand up and say that those are offensive, which they were."

Kasich:
"Attacking judges based on their race &/or religion is another tactic that divides our country. More importantly, it is flat out wrong."
----

Eventually, the Republicans made the expedient decision to shut up about it. The Dems continued to call it as they see it.

(11-09-2016 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Owl69: She did _not_ mean "all". That was clear from the paragraph I quoted, where she listed the specific characteristics she found deplorable. It's even more clear from the follow-up paragraph that OONH posted.
Is it fair that the basket of regulars is seen negatively by liberals simply due to its association and shared support with the basket of deplorables? My opinion - yes. If you want to debate that fairness question then fine, let's do it. But the facts aren't up for debate: 1) the deplorable subset exists, and 2) Hillary clearly called them out as a subset.

She did not mean "all" but she made no effort to differentiate between those that she did mean and those that she didn't. As a result, she pissed off and strengthened the resolve of every potential Trump voter who did not consider him/herself to be deplorable.

That's the point I keep trying to make to you guys on the left. You can't keep slinging around terms like racist and sexist and homophobic and misogynist and xenophobic and deplorable without realizing that every person who disagrees with on the issues sees that as a personal attack on them.

I did vote for Hillary once this year (in the primary, quite frankly because at that point I thought the most important thing was to stop Bernie) and I did not vote for Trump (or Hillary) in the general. So I'm not really the focus here. But I have gotten damned tired of having to defend against baseless insinuations of racism when I criticized Obama--not every time, but way, way too many damn times--and I was not looking forward to facing similar unsubstantiated insinuations of sexism every time I criticized Hillary.

So my advice--instead of leading with the name-calling, try discussing issues first. And don't start issue discussions with the mindset that "I have the only good ideas here." You'll fare better in the long run.

(11-15-2016 03:22 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

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

By using imagery of Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the Koch Brothers.

Not that any of them are involved in banking, but non of Sanders other political points are particularly cogent.

I guess Sanders was not a good example :)

(11-15-2016 02:52 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I am just saying that there are a lot of people that anti-semitism does appeal to, and I think the Trump campaign deliberately exploited that. I think it is in line with the "mexican rapist" and "muslim ban".
...
But, there are those that believe in the cosmopolitan elite (Jews) that secretly run the world, and they are certainly encouraged by singling out Jews in that kind of ad. As an isolated incident, it wouldn't concern me, but the campaign seems to have mainstreamed the appeal to the neo-nazi crowd.

I doubt very seriously that the "neo-Nazi crowd" was sufficient in number to have constituted the margin of victory in a single state that Trump won. So if that was their approach, it was a very stupid one.

Hillary didn't lose because of neo-nazis, she lost because a lot of people think her ideas suck. This is the problem with the liberal intelligentsia. You are so convinced of the superiority of your ideas that you find it impossible to grasp the notion that people could vote against you because your ideas suck. No, it has to be something else--racism or sexism or xenophobia or homophobia or whatever.

Wrap your head around it--your ideas suck.

I dislike Obama, not because he is a black man, but because his ideas suck.
I dislike Hillary, not because she is a woman, but because her ideas suck.
I dislike Trump, not because he is a misogynist or a racist or a homophobe (I believe none of those things about him), but because his ideas suck, specifically his ideas about Muslims and Mexicans and free trade.
I disliked GWB, not because he lied, but because his ideas sucked (at least the ones he exhibited in the white house; I actually thought the pre-presidential GWB had some good ideas).
I liked Bill Clinton, despite the fact that he was a misogynist, because he had some ideas that didn't suck.

And there may very well be racists or xenophobes or misogynists or sexists who agree with me. But they don't agree with me because they are racists or any of those other things, and the fact that they do agree doesn't make me any one of those things.

(11-09-2016 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Is it fair that the basket of regulars is seen negatively by liberals simply due to its association and shared support with the basket of deplorables? My opinion - yes.

My opinion - not no but hell no. And I think it is extremely disingenuous and unethical for you or anyone else to argue otherwise.

(11-15-2016 04:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Owl69: She did _not_ mean "all". That was clear from the paragraph I quoted, where she listed the specific characteristics she found deplorable. It's even more clear from the follow-up paragraph that OONH posted.
Is it fair that the basket of regulars is seen negatively by liberals simply due to its association and shared support with the basket of deplorables? My opinion - yes. If you want to debate that fairness question then fine, let's do it. But the facts aren't up for debate: 1) the deplorable subset exists, and 2) Hillary clearly called them out as a subset.

She did not mean "all" but she made no effort to differentiate between those that she did mean and those that she didn't. As a result, she pissed off and strengthened the resolve of every potential Trump voter who did not consider him/herself to be deplorable.

That's the point I keep trying to make to you guys on the left. You can't keep slinging around terms like racist and sexist and homophobic and misogynist and xenophobic and deplorable without realizing that every person who disagrees with on the issues sees that as a personal attack on them.

I did vote for Hillary once this year (in the primary, quite frankly because at that point I thought the most important thing was to stop Bernie) and I did not vote for Trump (or Hillary) in the general. So I'm not really the focus here. But I have gotten damned tired of having to defend against baseless insinuations of racism when I criticized Obama--not every time, but way, way too many damn times--and I was not looking forward to facing similar unsubstantiated insinuations of sexism every time I criticized Hillary.

So my advice--instead of leading with the name-calling, try discussing issues first. And don't start issue discussions with the mindset that "I have the only good ideas here." You'll fare better in the long run.

You're kidding, right?

In context she 100% did try to differentiate. And I quote (bold for emphasis):

Quote:You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."

"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

How is the second and third bold portion not trying to differentiate between the two?

(11-15-2016 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In context she 100% did try to differentiate. And I quote (bold for emphasis):

Quote:You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."

"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

How is the second and third bold portion not trying to differentiate between the two?

Because it makes no differentiation. "Some of you are A, some of you are B," doesn't make any differentiation at all. How does it differentiate between those who are A and those who are B?

Suppose hypothetically I am a Trump supporter (I'm not). Based upon her "differentiation," am I in group A or group B? How would I know?

It's just a massive attempt at guilt by association.

(11-15-2016 05:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In context she 100% did try to differentiate. And I quote (bold for emphasis):

Quote:You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."

"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

How is the second and third bold portion not trying to differentiate between the two?

Because it makes no differentiation. "Some of you are A, some of you are B," doesn't make any differentiation at all. How does it differentiate between those who are A and those who are B?

Suppose hypothetically I am a Trump supporter (I'm not). Based upon her "differentiation," am I in group A or group B?

I'll pose a question to you as well - how would you like her to differentiate these two groups? By creating a generalization about what they look like or where they live?

I think the differentiation, which is that some are racist and bigots, which can be determined by their actions (what racial slurs they use, if they actively support racist groups, etc), is pretty much good enough.

Would you have preferred her to outline every little detail about what makes a person racist if they're racist? Should she have stated - those that visit Stormfront, those that firebomb churches, those that smear racial slurs across public buildings, those that question the president's birth certificate, those that tweet out racial slurs/images, and on, and on?