(08-15-2017 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I doubt that anything that PDT will ever do, say, or stand for will ever get a vote of "passable job" (let alone "good job") from certain people.

I believe that Trump’s original official statement was exactly what it was: denouncing hatred, intolerance, and violence. But PDT's statement didn't pretend that it only takes place solely and exclusively among the Klan and the Nazis.

It was silly to do a follow-up on Monday to satisfy the press because *nothing* he could have said at any point would have satisfied the people who have sure that he’s is Satan's representative on Earth.

But since I interestingly believe that two groups showed up to rumble on Saturday, I guess this is just another "rant", eh?

Really, straightforwardly condemning a group of neo-Nazis who murdered an innocent woman should be a no-brainer, my mind boggles that you don't get this.

Because apparently two wrongs cancel each other out.

If Trump had been a normal president who can use his words to express complex thoughts, he could have actually touched on the issues presented by the Antifa present (using force to try and quell the free speech of others) and not sounded like he was minimizing the dangers posed by violent neo-Nazis.

Instead, he was Trump and didn't do that.

(08-15-2017 12:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I doubt that anything that PDT will ever do, say, or stand for will ever get a vote of "passable job" (let alone "good job") from certain people.

I believe that Trump’s original official statement was exactly what it was: denouncing hatred, intolerance, and violence. But PDT's statement didn't pretend that it only takes place solely and exclusively among the Klan and the Nazis.

It was silly to do a follow-up on Monday to satisfy the press because *nothing* he could have said at any point would have satisfied the people who have sure that he’s is Satan's representative on Earth.

But since I interestingly believe that two groups showed up to rumble on Saturday, I guess this is just another "rant", eh?

Really, straightforwardly condemning a group of neo-Nazis who murdered an innocent woman should be a no-brainer, my mind boggles that you don't get this.

(08-15-2017 10:15 PM)erice Wrote:  I'm watching more of the conference right now. He's defending people who quietly protested *at the nighttime rally*.

Quote:"We're trying to do a pro-white demonstration," Kessler said. "We're trying to show that folks can stand up for white people. The political correctness has gotten way out of control, and the only way to fight back against it has been to stand up for our own interests."

(08-17-2017 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing I've been thinking about after Charlottesville and the proclaimed support of Trump by white supremacist leaders and followers. Do these guys not fit into that basket of deplorables Clinton talked about? They obviously do, but that comment was a hard one to stomach for a lot of people who did not fall into that basket, but felt like she was lumping them in there with them.

How do we, going forward, call out those so called deplorables without eliciting the same response? Or are we just going to be stuck biting our tongues?

(08-17-2017 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing I've been thinking about after Charlottesville and the proclaimed support of Trump by white supremacist leaders and followers. Do these guys not fit into that basket of deplorables Clinton talked about? They obviously do, but that comment was a hard one to stomach for a lot of people who did not fall into that basket, but felt like she was lumping them in there with them.

How do we, going forward, call out those so called deplorables without eliciting the same response? Or are we just going to be stuck biting our tongues?

(08-17-2017 02:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing I've been thinking about after Charlottesville and the proclaimed support of Trump by white supremacist leaders and followers. Do these guys not fit into that basket of deplorables Clinton talked about? They obviously do, but that comment was a hard one to stomach for a lot of people who did not fall into that basket, but felt like she was lumping them in there with them.
How do we, going forward, call out those so called deplorables without eliciting the same response? Or are we just going to be stuck biting our tongues?

Simple - don't say that *half* of Trump's support comes from that basket. Which is what she said, verbatim.
Preferring a (flawed) Trump to a (flawed) Clinton, or even simply declining to support Clinton (which in the ideologue's mind is equivalent to supporting Trump), does not merit a 1 in 2 chance of being deemed a fellow traveler with white supremacists et al.

Your question itself seems to illustrate the problem. Nobody worth caring about objects to the calling out of *actual* white supremacists, etc. in the harshest possible terms. By all means call *them* deplorable, evil, whatever. But your question implies that is not enough. Why else would one be reaching for language with which to associate others with white supremacists? So do tell. What else should land someone in that basket alongside the Klan member and the neo-Nazi?
And therein lies the issue, because as far as I can see, the impulse to define anything other than standard Democratic orthodoxy as "hate" (or in the case of wanting to retool the health insurance system, "murder") has been given into, full force. And how that changes back to a more civil belief that the vast, vast majority of people on the other side of the fence on quotidian issues such as tax policy, health insurance, government spending, etc. -- and even social issues like abortion, guns, affirmative action, etc. -- are nevertheless people of good will, I have no idea.

(08-17-2017 02:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing I've been thinking about after Charlottesville and the proclaimed support of Trump by white supremacist leaders and followers. Do these guys not fit into that basket of deplorables Clinton talked about? They obviously do, but that comment was a hard one to stomach for a lot of people who did not fall into that basket, but felt like she was lumping them in there with them.

How do we, going forward, call out those so called deplorables without eliciting the same response? Or are we just going to be stuck biting our tongues?

Simple - don't say that *half* of Trump's support comes from that basket. Which is what she said, verbatim.

Preferring a (flawed) Trump to a (flawed) Clinton, or even simply declining to support Clinton (which in the ideologue's mind is equivalent to supporting Trump), does not merit a 1 in 2 chance of being deemed a fellow traveler with white supremacists et al.

Your question itself seems to illustrate the problem. Nobody worth caring about objects to the calling out of *actual* white supremacists, etc. in the harshest possible terms. By all means call *them* deplorable, evil, whatever. But your question implies that is not enough. Why else would one be reaching for language with which to associate others with white supremacists? So do tell. What else should land someone in that basket alongside the Klan member and the neo-Nazi?

And therein lies the issue, because as far as I can see, the impulse to define anything other than standard Democratic orthodoxy as "hate" (or in the case of wanting to retool the health insurance system, "murder") has been given into, full force. And how that changes back to a more civil belief that the vast, vast majority of people on the other side of the fence on quotidian issues such as tax policy, health insurance, government spending, etc. -- and even social issues like abortion, guns, affirmative action, etc. -- are nevertheless people of good will, I have no idea.

(08-17-2017 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and obviously your statement that anything but democratic philosophy = hate is a phony projection. If anything, Clinton indicated that 50% of people weren't deplorables, and, ergo, at least 50% of Trump supporters were people of good will.

Quote:Somehow, though, no one who was offended by this comment felt they were being put into that category...

(08-17-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and obviously your statement that anything but democratic philosophy = hate is a phony projection. If anything, Clinton indicated that 50% of people weren't deplorables, and, ergo, at least 50% of Trump supporters were people of good will.

Based on what I've seen posted since Charlottesville, if not before, I wouldn't say that is phony at all. Since Obama entered the white house, the standard response to disagreement with democrats has been to cry "racist." I've said for years that one good thing about Internet arguments is that you know you've won when they have nothing left but to call you racist.

Quote:Somehow, though, no one who was offended by this comment felt they were being put into that category...

When the allegation is 50%, then anyone who was offended has a right to feel that there was a pretty decent chance (like 50-50) that the comment was directed at them.

(08-17-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and obviously your statement that anything but democratic philosophy = hate is a phony projection. If anything, Clinton indicated that 50% of people weren't deplorables, and, ergo, at least 50% of Trump supporters were people of good will.

Based on what I've seen posted since Charlottesville, if not before, I wouldn't say that is phony at all. Since Obama entered the white house, the standard response to disagreement with democrats has been to cry "racist." I've said for years that one good thing about Internet arguments is that you know you've won when they have nothing left but to call you racist.

Quote:Somehow, though, no one who was offended by this comment felt they were being put into that category...

When the allegation is 50%, then anyone who was offended has a right to feel that there was a pretty decent chance (like 50-50) that the comment was directed at them.

But they also have just the same percentage chance as being called a good person? So aren't they just looking to be offended?

And that goes to my comment about how that line is phony. Clinton explicitly stated that 50% of Trump supporters were good people who had real concerns about economics, policy, etc. Therefore, that means that those people, who obviously aren't leaning democratic, are not hateful.

What % of Trump supporters would have been an appropriate amount to present for you to not feel the way you do?

(08-17-2017 02:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Simple - don't say that *half* of Trump's support comes from that basket. Which is what she said, verbatim.

(08-17-2017 03:24 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and obviously your statement that anything but democratic philosophy = hate is a phony projection. If anything, Clinton indicated that 50% of people weren't deplorables, and, ergo, at least 50% of Trump supporters were people of good will.

Based on what I've seen posted since Charlottesville, if not before, I wouldn't say that is phony at all. Since Obama entered the white house, the standard response to disagreement with democrats has been to cry "racist." I've said for years that one good thing about Internet arguments is that you know you've won when they have nothing left but to call you racist.

Quote:Somehow, though, no one who was offended by this comment felt they were being put into that category...

When the allegation is 50%, then anyone who was offended has a right to feel that there was a pretty decent chance (like 50-50) that the comment was directed at them.

But they also have just the same percentage chance as being called a good person? So aren't they just looking to be offended?

And that goes to my comment about how that line is phony. Clinton explicitly stated that 50% of Trump supporters were good people who had real concerns about economics, policy, etc. Therefore, that means that those people, who obviously aren't leaning democratic, are not hateful.

What % of Trump supporters would have been an appropriate amount to present for you to not feel the way you do?

No, you tell me. 60 million people voted for Trump. You think there are 30 million racist, evil bigots in this country? So 1 in 4 voters? How about we start here: Was she off by a little or a lot? And in which direction?

(08-17-2017 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is kind of my point. As was pointed out by another poster, even at the time she said she was grossly generalizing. So for people to get so up in arms about the % that she applied to that statement missed the point of her comment, which was that Trump had a lot of vocal support by deplorable people and he was feeding them what they craved.
And Charlottesville has cemented the fact that a percentage of the those who supported and voted for Trump are truly deplorable people, and Trump did, and continues to, feed them.
The percentage of those who voted for Trump that fall in that category doesn't matter - it's the fact that he is in bed with them that does. Yet somehow, because an incorrect % was applied by Clinton (that percent, if actually calculated, should be much lower), the conversation was never about the fact that Trump actively courted those individuals as it should have been, but that people who supported Trump and weren't those individuals, were offended that perhaps some people thought that maybe they were the deplorables.

(08-17-2017 03:24 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  No, you tell me. 60 million people voted for Trump. You think there are 30 million racist, evil bigots in this country? So 1 in 4 voters? How about we start here: Was she off by a little or a lot? And in which direction?

(08-17-2017 04:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is kind of my point. As was pointed out by another poster, even at the time she said she was grossly generalizing. So for people to get so up in arms about the % that she applied to that statement missed the point of her comment, which was that Trump had a lot of vocal support by deplorable people and he was feeding them what they craved.
And Charlottesville has cemented the fact that a percentage of the those who supported and voted for Trump are truly deplorable people, and Trump did, and continues to, feed them.
The percentage of those who voted for Trump that fall in that category doesn't matter - it's the fact that he is in bed with them that does. Yet somehow, because an incorrect % was applied by Clinton (that percent, if actually calculated, should be much lower), the conversation was never about the fact that Trump actively courted those individuals as it should have been, but that people who supported Trump and weren't those individuals, were offended that perhaps some people thought that maybe they were the deplorables.

And this is precisely the sort of rationalization that cost Hillary the white house.