-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 14, 2019, 05:59:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 217143 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1725 on: November 10, 2016, 04:44:48 AM »

SinisterSmile, do you really believe it's a coincidence that the two major critiques against Obama and Clinton (both of which mostly emanated from Trump) were that he wasn't an American and she was weak? You don't think both of those critiques played into entrenched stereotypes about race and gender in America?

Chocolate Shake Man, do you think I hate women?

I don't know you at all. Now that I've answered yours can you answer mine?

Sure thing. Trump branded Hillary as crooked, not weak. Trumps major critique of Obama was a lack of change and Obamacare.
So you're completely dodging.
"I don't hate women" is such a diversion. Every individual unless they come out and say "I hate all women" have deniability. What does it mean when people grow up and live in a misogynistic culture and buy into and spread misogynistic attacks and support for president a person who repeatedly made blatant misogynistic statelments throughout his campaign and previous life? just because you can't see it in yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't see it when it's blatant outside yourself either.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1726 on: November 10, 2016, 04:55:21 AM »

Sure thing. Trump branded Hillary as crooked, not weak. Trumps major critique of Obama was a lack of change and Obamacare.

Well, he made those critiques in addition to the major critiques that he wasn't American and she was weak, which is simply a fact, so to say that he didn't make them is dishonest. So I have to repeat the question, do you really believe it's a coincidence that both of those critiques played into entrenched stereotypes about race and gender in America?
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1727 on: November 10, 2016, 05:00:03 AM »

SinisterSmile, do you really believe it's a coincidence that the two major critiques against Obama and Clinton (both of which mostly emanated from Trump) were that he wasn't an American and she was weak? You don't think both of those critiques played into entrenched stereotypes about race and gender in America?

Chocolate Shake Man, do you think I hate women?

I don't know you at all. Now that I've answered yours can you answer mine?

Sure thing. Trump branded Hillary as crooked, not weak. Trumps major critique of Obama was a lack of change and Obamacare.
So you're completely dodging.
"I don't hate women" is such a diversion. Every individual unless they come out and say "I hate all women" have deniability. What does it mean when people grow up and live in a misogynistic culture and buy into and spread misogynistic attacks and support for president a person who repeatedly made blatant misogynistic statelments throughout his campaign and previous life? just because you can't see it in yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't see it when it's blatant outside yourself either.

I don't know what to say to you, but you're completely delusional. I'm not American, I'm looking at this from the outside. You wanna know why I'm invested in this election? Because back in January I knew that Trump was the better candidate and I placed a bet when the odds were insanely good. I won, big.

I don't hate women, millions of Americans didn't vote for Trump because they hate women, they voted for him because he absolutely ran rings around he. She sucked as a candidate, with scandal after scandal following her. Her gender doesn't matter, she absolutely sucked as a candidate. She sucked so bad that she needed to rig the primaries against Bernie, she sucked so bad that she needed Donna Brazile to give her debate questions a head of time. She couldn't even conceded the race on the night.

She declared war against a cartoon frog.

America will have a female president one day, and I think that's cool. But Hillary just sucked.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1728 on: November 10, 2016, 05:02:15 AM »

Sure thing. Trump branded Hillary as crooked, not weak. Trumps major critique of Obama was a lack of change and Obamacare.

Well, he made those critiques in addition to the major critiques that he wasn't American and she was weak, which is simply a fact, so to say that he didn't make them is dishonest. So I have to repeat the question, do you really believe it's a coincidence that both of those critiques played into entrenched stereotypes about race and gender in America?

I think race and sex played less of a role than you think.

http://reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5ctg/they_just_dont_fucking_get_it/

This sums it up much more articulately than I could
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 05:05:01 AM by SinisterSmile » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1729 on: November 10, 2016, 05:10:35 AM »

SinisterSmile, do you really believe it's a coincidence that the two major critiques against Obama and Clinton (both of which mostly emanated from Trump) were that he wasn't an American and she was weak? You don't think both of those critiques played into entrenched stereotypes about race and gender in America?

Chocolate Shake Man, do you think I hate women?

I don't know you at all. Now that I've answered yours can you answer mine?

Sure thing. Trump branded Hillary as crooked, not weak. Trumps major critique of Obama was a lack of change and Obamacare.
So you're completely dodging.
"I don't hate women" is such a diversion. Every individual unless they come out and say "I hate all women" have deniability. What does it mean when people grow up and live in a misogynistic culture and buy into and spread misogynistic attacks and support for president a person who repeatedly made blatant misogynistic statelments throughout his campaign and previous life? just because you can't see it in yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't see it when it's blatant outside yourself either.

I don't know what to say to you, but you're completely delusional. I'm not American, I'm looking at this from the outside. You wanna know why I'm invested in this election? Because back in January I knew that Trump was the better candidate and I placed a bet when the odds were insanely good. I won, big.

I don't hate women, millions of Americans didn't vote for Trump because they hate women, they voted for him because he absolutely ran rings around he. She sucked as a candidate, with scandal after scandal following her. Her gender doesn't matter, she absolutely sucked as a candidate. She sucked so bad that she needed to rig the primaries against Bernie, she sucked so bad that she needed Donna Brazile to give her debate questions a head of time. She couldn't even conceded the race on the night.

She declared war against a cartoon frog.

America will have a female president one day, and I think that's cool. But Hillary just sucked.
Exactly, he ran rings around her because a misogynist population was ready and willing to believe all kinds of ridiculous lies about the "cold", "calculating", "ambitious" but simultaneously "weak", and "lazy" woman who ran the most effective criminal conspiracy in history, while being "stupid", "ineffective", and "playing the woman card."
That you believe she "rigged" the primaries against Sanders and that you think she "needed" Donna Brazile to leak that there will be a question about the water in Flint at a Q and A in Flint, while Trump had Hannity openly feeding him question after question in town halls  (do you really believe that the other campaigns, whose private communications weren't made public, don't have close journalistic connections from whom they receive heads up?) or that she "couldn't" concede on the night is further evidence of your misogyny.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1730 on: November 10, 2016, 05:12:16 AM »

Who, btw, won the popular vote.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1731 on: November 10, 2016, 05:22:00 AM »

Sure thing. Trump branded Hillary as crooked, not weak. Trumps major critique of Obama was a lack of change and Obamacare.

Well, he made those critiques in addition to the major critiques that he wasn't American and she was weak, which is simply a fact, so to say that he didn't make them is dishonest. So I have to repeat the question, do you really believe it's a coincidence that both of those critiques played into entrenched stereotypes about race and gender in America?

I think race and sex played less of a role than you think.

http://reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5ctg/they_just_dont_fucking_get_it/

This sums it up much more articulately than I could

I'm sure if you look back on this thread, you can see where I said quite outright that it's a mistake to cast all Trump voters as racists and misogynists so I agree with that element of that post. I do think that there's a lot in that post that's a fantasy. The US hasn't been fighting other people's wars. They have been the leading terrorist state for decades and the central cause for global instability. To essentially create a global mess and then wipe your hands and say, "we don't want to fight in other people's wars" is not only ignorant of historical geopolitics, it is also dangerously irresponsible. And this didn't happen after the so-called era of progress as this poster would have it. It's been happening since the inception of the country, and then massively ramped up since WWII. The historical record in this link is a complete fabrication.

The stuff about having to tell people that your wife is black and that you're bisexual is an obscenity because it really demonstrates what people of privilege think oppression is. Black people don't have to tell people that they were married to a white person. Rather, they have to contend with systemic oppression and a system that polices their actions more than any other race, throws them in jail for committing the same crimes that white people commit who don't get thrown in jail for, get longer sentences for the same crimes, etc.

So while I do think that we have to be careful about assuming the reasons why people voted for Trump, it's nevertheless the case, as I pointed out above, that surely racist and sexist people voted for him for racist and sexist reasons. And we do have to be honest about these things where we see them. So, when someone ignores the very real circumstances of systemic oppression against a race in favour of the comparatively trivial problem of making up stories about your wife, then that is racist.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 05:28:51 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1732 on: November 10, 2016, 05:24:05 AM »

SinisterSmile, do you really believe it's a coincidence that the two major critiques against Obama and Clinton (both of which mostly emanated from Trump) were that he wasn't an American and she was weak? You don't think both of those critiques played into entrenched stereotypes about race and gender in America?

Chocolate Shake Man, do you think I hate women?

I don't know you at all. Now that I've answered yours can you answer mine?

Sure thing. Trump branded Hillary as crooked, not weak. Trumps major critique of Obama was a lack of change and Obamacare.
So you're completely dodging.
"I don't hate women" is such a diversion. Every individual unless they come out and say "I hate all women" have deniability. What does it mean when people grow up and live in a misogynistic culture and buy into and spread misogynistic attacks and support for president a person who repeatedly made blatant misogynistic statelments throughout his campaign and previous life? just because you can't see it in yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't see it when it's blatant outside yourself either.

I don't know what to say to you, but you're completely delusional. I'm not American, I'm looking at this from the outside. You wanna know why I'm invested in this election? Because back in January I knew that Trump was the better candidate and I placed a bet when the odds were insanely good. I won, big.

I don't hate women, millions of Americans didn't vote for Trump because they hate women, they voted for him because he absolutely ran rings around he. She sucked as a candidate, with scandal after scandal following her. Her gender doesn't matter, she absolutely sucked as a candidate. She sucked so bad that she needed to rig the primaries against Bernie, she sucked so bad that she needed Donna Brazile to give her debate questions a head of time. She couldn't even conceded the race on the night.

She declared war against a cartoon frog.

America will have a female president one day, and I think that's cool. But Hillary just sucked.
Exactly, he ran rings around her because a misogynist population was ready and willing to believe all kinds of ridiculous lies about the "cold", "calculating", "ambitious" but simultaneously "weak", and "lazy" woman who ran the most effective criminal conspiracy in history, while being "stupid", "ineffective", and "playing the woman card."
That you believe she "rigged" the primaries against Sanders and that you think she "needed" Donna Brazile to leak that there will be a question about the water in Flint at a Q and A in Flint, while Trump had Hannity openly feeding him question after question in town halls  (do you really believe that the other campaigns, whose private communications weren't made public, don't have close journalistic connections from whom they receive heads up?) or that she "couldn't" concede on the night is further evidence of your misogyny.

Here campaign was a flaming car wreck. Trump dismantled #ImWithHer with ease and absorbed it for his campaign. #StrongerTogether, except for millions and millions of deplorable Americans?

If you don't think it was rigged, why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz step down?

The drip drip drip from Wikileaks, the secrecy of her emails, the FBI investigating her twice, AG Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton secretly on a tarmac? Pay for play?

All Trump had to do was brand her as crooked, everything else was just a cherry on top. Jay Z, Beyoncé, Katy Perry and a slew of other celebrities couldn't save her. Not even Barack and Michelle Obama could shine up the lump of coal that was her campaign.

And for you to say that me pointing out the obvious makes me a woman hater, it is just beyond ridiculous.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1733 on: November 10, 2016, 05:25:02 AM »

Who, btw, won the popular vote.

She also won the polls and statistics, but that's not how you become President
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1734 on: November 10, 2016, 05:25:56 AM »

Reddit: Maybe they wouldn't be called racist and sexist for voicing their concerns if they didn't so frequently voice them in ways that are racist and sexist.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1735 on: November 10, 2016, 05:32:17 AM »

I do wish though that there was as much focus on how awful Trump's actual policies are coming from his critics. I think that would have helped a lot.

I also think it's amusing that people suggest that Trump's election came from a dissatisfaction from Obama's administration when he still has such a high approval rating.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1736 on: November 10, 2016, 05:38:30 AM »

Reddit: Maybe they wouldn't be called racist and sexist for voicing their concerns if they didn't so frequently voice them in ways that are racist and sexist.

I'm not a big reddit fan, but that's a good gauge about how people felt
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1737 on: November 10, 2016, 05:39:24 AM »

Reddit: Maybe they wouldn't be called racist and sexist for voicing their concerns if they didn't so frequently voice them in ways that are racist and sexist.

I'm not a big reddit fan, but that's a good gauge about how people felt

I hope not. I was giving them more credit than that.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1738 on: November 10, 2016, 05:39:41 AM »

SinisterSmile, do you really believe it's a coincidence that the two major critiques against Obama and Clinton (both of which mostly emanated from Trump) were that he wasn't an American and she was weak? You don't think both of those critiques played into entrenched stereotypes about race and gender in America?

Chocolate Shake Man, do you think I hate women?

I don't know you at all. Now that I've answered yours can you answer mine?

Sure thing. Trump branded Hillary as crooked, not weak. Trumps major critique of Obama was a lack of change and Obamacare.
So you're completely dodging.
"I don't hate women" is such a diversion. Every individual unless they come out and say "I hate all women" have deniability. What does it mean when people grow up and live in a misogynistic culture and buy into and spread misogynistic attacks and support for president a person who repeatedly made blatant misogynistic statelments throughout his campaign and previous life? just because you can't see it in yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't see it when it's blatant outside yourself either.

I don't know what to say to you, but you're completely delusional. I'm not American, I'm looking at this from the outside. You wanna know why I'm invested in this election? Because back in January I knew that Trump was the better candidate and I placed a bet when the odds were insanely good. I won, big.

I don't hate women, millions of Americans didn't vote for Trump because they hate women, they voted for him because he absolutely ran rings around he. She sucked as a candidate, with scandal after scandal following her. Her gender doesn't matter, she absolutely sucked as a candidate. She sucked so bad that she needed to rig the primaries against Bernie, she sucked so bad that she needed Donna Brazile to give her debate questions a head of time. She couldn't even conceded the race on the night.

She declared war against a cartoon frog.

America will have a female president one day, and I think that's cool. But Hillary just sucked.
Exactly, he ran rings around her because a misogynist population was ready and willing to believe all kinds of ridiculous lies about the "cold", "calculating", "ambitious" but simultaneously "weak", and "lazy" woman who ran the most effective criminal conspiracy in history, while being "stupid", "ineffective", and "playing the woman card."
That you believe she "rigged" the primaries against Sanders and that you think she "needed" Donna Brazile to leak that there will be a question about the water in Flint at a Q and A in Flint, while Trump had Hannity openly feeding him question after question in town halls  (do you really believe that the other campaigns, whose private communications weren't made public, don't have close journalistic connections from whom they receive heads up?) or that she "couldn't" concede on the night is further evidence of your misogyny.

Here campaign was a flaming car wreck. Trump dismantled #ImWithHer with ease and absorbed it for his campaign. #StrongerTogether, except for millions and millions of deplorable Americans?

If you don't think it was rigged, why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz step down?

The drip drip drip from Wikileaks, the secrecy of her emails, the FBI investigating her twice, AG Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton secretly on a tarmac? Pay for play?

All Trump had to do was brand her as crooked, everything else was just a cherry on top. Jay Z, Beyoncé, Katy Perry and a slew of other celebrities couldn't save her. Not even Barack and Michelle Obama could shine up the lump of coal that was her campaign.

And for you to say that me pointing out the obvious makes me a woman hater, it is just beyond ridiculous.
He managed to persuade fewer people than she did.
If "the obvious" to you is misogynist dishonest smears beyond any seen before against the first woman major presidential candidate, you might be a misogynist.
Your list of "scandals" not one of which indicate her doing anything grossly wrong, unlike much of what Trump is proven to have done, is further evidence. You are so primed to hate her that you will milk any hint of wrongdoing on her part for all it's worth while brushing off actual proven illegal actions and racist and misogynistic statements and actions on his part. It's amazing.  
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1739 on: November 10, 2016, 05:43:04 AM »

Reddit: Maybe they wouldn't be called racist and sexist for voicing their concerns if they didn't so frequently voice them in ways that are racist and sexist.

I'm not a big reddit fan, but that's a good gauge about how people felt

I hope not. I was giving them more credit than that.

This election was never going to be about policy and experience, Trump knew that and reframed it to his advantage. It was all about the emotion surrounding the establishment.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1740 on: November 10, 2016, 05:45:26 AM »


Your list of "scandals" not one of which indicate her doing anything grossly wrong, unlike much of what Trump is proven to have done, is further evidence.   

That's true in the examples that SinisterSmile brings up. However, she has supported many grossly wrong policies, most of which went unmentioned by both sides. It's not unusual for people to hone in on comparatively trivial criticisms, no matter who is running and no matter what side they are on. People tend to only get what the media gives them. Based on what the media gave people alone, I'd say Clinton was unquestionably the best candidate around. But there's a bigger picture here as well.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1741 on: November 10, 2016, 05:46:51 AM »

Reddit: Maybe they wouldn't be called racist and sexist for voicing their concerns if they didn't so frequently voice them in ways that are racist and sexist.

I'm not a big reddit fan, but that's a good gauge about how people felt

I hope not. I was giving them more credit than that.

This election was never going to be about policy and experience, Trump knew that and reframed it to his advantage. It was all about the emotion surrounding the establishment.

Yes, he was actively dishonest in that sense. And, consequently, a giant hypocrite for calling out Clinton's dishonesty. But, yes, to his credit, he was better at being dishonest than she was.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1742 on: November 10, 2016, 05:59:45 AM »

I haven't posted on the SSMB very much in the last few months, but I'm glad to see that some things never change. 

Emily, didn't you say last week that it was possible to have a discussion with somebody with an opposing view while being respectful?

I know you've called me racist, bigoted, and hateful in the past, and now I see you're calling another poster that you don't happen to agree with a misogynist. 
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1743 on: November 10, 2016, 06:11:11 AM »

The quoting is getting hard as I'm on a phone.

Emily, I'm not a sexist. I saw Hillary Clinton collapse on camera and the media did their best to sweep it under the rug. They blamed it on the heat at first, then before that it was allergies, finally they stuck a landing on pneumonia. For me to point out that her sickness, the cover up and her lack of visibility for the rest of her campaign was an issue doesn't make me a woman hater. Seriously, get over it.

Her campaign sucked, the media desperately covering up for her did no favours and the FBI investigation is completely on her, not some big conspiracy.

Trump played a simple, strong campaign against the establishment and 'The Clinton Machine' and I knew months ago that he was going to win, not because millions of your fellow Americans are hateful, stupid or sexist, but because she was a god awful candidate.

Just because you can gloss over the scandals doesn't mean other people could. America is ready for a woman president, but Hillary had too much mud.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8544



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1744 on: November 10, 2016, 06:18:10 AM »

I haven't posted on the SSMB very much in the last few months, but I'm glad to see that some things never change. 

Emily, didn't you say last week that it was possible to have a discussion with somebody with an opposing view while being respectful?

I know you've called me racist, bigoted, and hateful in the past, and now I see you're calling another poster that you don't happen to agree with a misogynist. 

I would say that if you stay away from this entire message board for numerous months, the place to first come back to should not be a hot-button thread, an election thread only two days after the result, in the most off-topic, potentially inflammatory forum on the board.

This entire thread is still "Tea Time at Buttercup Junction" compared to most corners of the internet right now.

For eons there has been a back and forth about whether, if you vote for someone or support them, you therefore can have that person's beliefs and tendencies ascribed to you to some degree. There are certainly limits to this. If I vote for someone who likes Rocky Road ice cream, it doesn't mean I like it. But I think Emily is pointing out as politely as it possibly can be that there's a point at which, if you support someone like Trump after his TEN TRILLION insults and offensive actions/statements, if you support someone whose *entire platform* is based on racism and misogyny and hate and fear and all of that, it's really nigh on impossible for many to buy that you don't have *any* tendency towards *any* of those awful attributes.

It's a very, very tough topic to wade into. I personally have had to do this, to say as respectfully as I can something like "Yeah, if you vote for Trump, you're probably racist and misogynistic and some or all of those awful things, to some degree."

I'm not saying it's literally impossible to vote from Trump while still repudiating pretty much *everything* he has ever said or done. But at that point, I guess the alternative to saying such a person is racist, etc. is to call into question their intellect or reasoning skills. This isn't the same as holding your nose because you don't like some aspects of a candidate. There are people who are wholesale disavowing Trump's *entire* modus operandi while still voting for him. There's a point at which my position on that is that either such a voter is 100% confused and lacking in basic reasoning, or, *much more likely*, they like at least some of that Trump rhetoric to some degree, even if they want to take a sort of "Mob Wife" attitude towards all the awful things he does and says.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8544



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1745 on: November 10, 2016, 06:26:51 AM »

The quoting is getting hard as I'm on a phone.

Emily, I'm not a sexist. I saw Hillary Clinton collapse on camera and the media did their best to sweep it under the rug. They blamed it on the heat at first, then before that it was allergies, finally they stuck a landing on pneumonia. For me to point out that her sickness, the cover up and her lack of visibility for the rest of her campaign was an issue doesn't make me a woman hater. Seriously, get over it.

Her campaign sucked, the media desperately covering up for her did no favours and the FBI investigation is completely on her, not some big conspiracy.

Trump played a simple, strong campaign against the establishment and 'The Clinton Machine' and I knew months ago that he was going to win, not because millions of your fellow Americans are hateful, stupid or sexist, but because she was a god awful candidate.

Just because you can gloss over the scandals doesn't mean other people could. America is ready for a woman president, but Hillary had too much mud.

If Trump were a relatively squeaky clean candidate, your theories might hold some water. But Trump had about ten zillion times more "mud" than Hillary did (and that's saying something, because she most certainly *does* have plenty of mud).

Trump has a track record ten billion miles long of bad business deals, shady business deals, scandals and lawsuits up the wazoo, lying about pretty much everything to do with his business empire, bogus universities and charities and all of that. The list is of course much, much longer. Plenty of people clearly *don't* care about any of that.

So it makes little sense to claim that some hypothetical voter is a blank, objective slate and decided it was Clinton who had "too much mud." If they were really examining it in even something slightly approaching objectivity, they'd see Trump as far more problematic in the "scandals" department.

No, people *like* Trump and *hate* Clinton, and then find some non-racist/misogynistic reason to hang voting for Trump on. E-mail servers, etc. Again, either these people are denying their own proclivities and refusing to admit them, or they lack any reasoning skills or ability to compare and contrast "scandals."

Clinton's scandals *shouldn't* have been painted as equally problematic as Trump's, but the Democratic party and Clinton *should* have known that the media will do this to keep the white-knuckle horse race going. They should have tried to find, I guess, a squeaky clean candidate. But that type is going to tend to be either total unknown, or someone with other *obvious* areas where racism and misogyny can still come into play, such as the latest name being thrown around, Michelle Obama, who is probably as personally squeaky clean as a mainstream potential political figure could be.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1746 on: November 10, 2016, 06:32:44 AM »

I haven't posted on the SSMB very much in the last few months, but I'm glad to see that some things never change. 

Emily, didn't you say last week that it was possible to have a discussion with somebody with an opposing view while being respectful?

I know you've called me racist, bigoted, and hateful in the past, and now I see you're calling another poster that you don't happen to agree with a misogynist. 


It's a very, very tough topic to wade into. I personally have had to do this, to say as respectfully as I can something like "Yeah, if you vote for Trump, you're probably racist and misogynistic and some or all of those awful things, to some degree."

I'm not saying it's literally impossible to vote from Trump while still repudiating pretty much *everything* he has ever said or done. But at that point, I guess the alternative to saying such a person is racist, etc. is to call into question their intellect or reasoning skills. This isn't the same as holding your nose because you don't like some aspects of a candidate. There are people who are wholesale disavowing Trump's *entire* modus operandi while still voting for him. There's a point at which my position on that is that either such a voter is 100% confused and lacking in basic reasoning, or, *much more likely*, they like at least some of that Trump rhetoric to some degree, even if they want to take a sort of "Mob Wife" attitude towards all the awful things he does and says.

I'm sorry, HJ, but I disagree 100%.  I think a lot of people, including myself, voted for Trump because we didn't want to vote for Hillary. 

If my vote for Trump makes people want to question my intelligence, education, tolerance, etc, then that's their problem, not mine. 
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8544



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1747 on: November 10, 2016, 06:36:56 AM »

Many posts back, Emily also touched on one of the basic human (and American) tendencies that I think probably explains a lot about this election.

Simply put, people don't like to admit negative things about themselves. The more educated and academic one tends to be, the more likely they are to be able to honestly assess themselves and their foibles and faults. In my opinion obviously.

But people don't want to admit they're racist, or whatever the negative descriptor may be. So we get these paradoxes where much of the country (including at least some moderate conservatives) will acknowledge serious continued problems with racism, misogyny, hate, and so on in this country. But a lot of those same people, including for instance Trump voters, would likely answer when asked that *they* aren't racist though!

It's the sort of thing where we'll never really know why people voted the way they did, because many aren't honest with themselves (and certainly then not others, and certainly not pollsters) about their negative proclivities. And we can't ever really peg this on an individual person. But it's impossible to buy (sorry, Dan Rather) that Hillary Clinton being a woman had little or nothing to do with many of the people who voted against her. Same with Obama. If you were/are a "birther", my guess is you're most likely racist to some degree. Maybe you're one of those "I have black friends!" racists or something.

So the impasse comes when we have these broad conclusions that really can't be ignored, but then we're faced with painting individual people with these attributes. Sure, it's *possible* you voted for Trump and against Clinton while having not one misogynistic feeling or tendency or attribute. But it's very, very unlikely. But I don't think it would make someone in this category feel much better if say "you're more likely than not misogynistic."
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 06:45:57 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8544



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1748 on: November 10, 2016, 06:41:38 AM »

I haven't posted on the SSMB very much in the last few months, but I'm glad to see that some things never change. 

Emily, didn't you say last week that it was possible to have a discussion with somebody with an opposing view while being respectful?

I know you've called me racist, bigoted, and hateful in the past, and now I see you're calling another poster that you don't happen to agree with a misogynist. 


It's a very, very tough topic to wade into. I personally have had to do this, to say as respectfully as I can something like "Yeah, if you vote for Trump, you're probably racist and misogynistic and some or all of those awful things, to some degree."

I'm not saying it's literally impossible to vote from Trump while still repudiating pretty much *everything* he has ever said or done. But at that point, I guess the alternative to saying such a person is racist, etc. is to call into question their intellect or reasoning skills. This isn't the same as holding your nose because you don't like some aspects of a candidate. There are people who are wholesale disavowing Trump's *entire* modus operandi while still voting for him. There's a point at which my position on that is that either such a voter is 100% confused and lacking in basic reasoning, or, *much more likely*, they like at least some of that Trump rhetoric to some degree, even if they want to take a sort of "Mob Wife" attitude towards all the awful things he does and says.

I'm sorry, HJ, but I disagree 100%.  I think a lot of people, including myself, voted for Trump because we didn't want to vote for Hillary. 

If my vote for Trump makes people want to question my intelligence, education, tolerance, etc, then that's their problem, not mine. 

And that's ultimately all that's going to happen, because we can't see into each other's brains.

The problem with many people is that while they're not particularly going to find it as much of a consolation if I suggest that they're not lacking in intelligence, my gut feeling in most of these cases, and certainly when it comes to people who can offer well-written, thoughtful posts on a message board, is that it's far more likely that rather than voting for Trump being a basic intelligence issue (e.g. not seeing how a bad thing is worse than a not-bad thing), it's far more likely in my opinion that what's involved is an unwillingness to admit to others (and sometimes oneself) proclivities towards (or at least preference in others for) a lot of negative attributes ascribed to Trump such as racism, xenophobia, misogyny, serial lying, closet "birtherism", etc.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1749 on: November 10, 2016, 06:43:56 AM »

The quoting is getting hard as I'm on a phone.

Emily, I'm not a sexist. I saw Hillary Clinton collapse on camera and the media did their best to sweep it under the rug. They blamed it on the heat at first, then before that it was allergies, finally they stuck a landing on pneumonia. For me to point out that her sickness, the cover up and her lack of visibility for the rest of her campaign was an issue doesn't make me a woman hater. Seriously, get over it.

Her campaign sucked, the media desperately covering up for her did no favours and the FBI investigation is completely on her, not some big conspiracy.

Trump played a simple, strong campaign against the establishment and 'The Clinton Machine' and I knew months ago that he was going to win, not because millions of your fellow Americans are hateful, stupid or sexist, but because she was a god awful candidate.

Just because you can gloss over the scandals doesn't mean other people could. America is ready for a woman president, but Hillary had too much mud.

If Trump were a relatively squeaky clean candidate, your theories might hold some water. But Trump had about ten zillion times more "mud" than Hillary did (and that's saying something, because she most certainly *does* have plenty of mud).

Trump has a track record ten billion miles long of bad business deals, shady business deals, scandals and lawsuits up the wazoo, lying about pretty much everything to do with his business empire, bogus universities and charities and all of that. The list is of course much, much longer. Plenty of people clearly *don't* care about any of that.

So it makes little sense to claim that some hypothetical voter is a blank, objective slate and decided it was Clinton who had "too much mud." If they were really examining it in even something slightly approaching objectivity, they'd see Trump as far more problematic in the "scandals" department.

No, people *like* Trump and *hate* Clinton, and then find some non-racist/misogynistic reason to hang voting for Trump on. E-mail servers, etc. Again, either these people are denying their own proclivities and refusing to admit them, or they lack any reasoning skills or ability to compare and contrast "scandals."

Clinton's scandals *shouldn't* have been painted as equally problematic as Trump's, but the Democratic party and Clinton *should* have known that the media will do this to keep the white-knuckle horse race going. They should have tried to find, I guess, a squeaky clean candidate. But that type is going to tend to be either total unknown, or someone with other *obvious* areas where racism and misogyny can still come into play, such as the latest name being thrown around, Michelle Obama, who is probably as personally squeaky clean as a mainstream potential political figure could be.

There's a difference with the scandals.

Trump absorbed each and every one while Hillary ran the clock and stalled for time. Up until the Access Hollywood tapes came out, Trump had done many press conferences to explain his side, minimize damage and attempt to make it work for him. Hillary did not,
She went at least 269 days (I think) between press conferences and during time she was under FBI investigation. She was seen as secretive and unable to deal with hard questions.

Any of Trump's scandals would have sunken a regular polition right? Only one that really did damage in my eyes was the sexual assault claims, but by that time his supporters had found out the extent of the Clinton camps dirty tricks, such as paying people to be violent at Trump rallies. Trump found his footing, double down on Bill Clintons past and powered through.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.14 seconds with 21 queries.