logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> The Democrat "brand", Has it hit bottom yet?
akaCG
post Nov 11 2016, 11:37 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



The day Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, the Democrats had ...

1 U.S. President

55 U.S. Senators

257 U.S. House members

29 Governors

27 State legislatures under their full control (i.e. both chambers)

17 State-level "trifectas" (i.e. both chambers + Governor)


The day Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, the Democrats will have ...

No U.S. President

46 U.S. Senators

193 U.S. House members

15 Governors

11 State legislatures under their full control (i.e. both chambers)

4 State-level "trifectas" (i.e. both chambers + Governor)


Only one debate question:

What does the Democratic Party need to do in order to begin to make its "brand" at least as attractive to voters as it was 8 years ago?

A. Become more Liberal/Progressive. Please elaborate.
B. Become more centrist. Please elaborate.
C. Nothing. Please elaborate.




Sources/links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...rty-visualized/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...-badly-exposed/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...elections,_2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...elections,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...elections,_2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...elections,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...elections,_2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...elections,_2016
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/...2_legislatures/
https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 56)
turnea
post Nov 17 2016, 03:03 PM
Post #41


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



The standard is ethical behavior based on fact. Not innuendo. Trump appointed white supremacists to primary positions in his campaign repeatedly. This is a fact.

Hillary Clinton sold access to the state department. This is not a fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 17 2016, 03:39 PM
Post #42


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Nov 17 2016, 10:57 AM) *
If the standard is not ethical behavior but if you were found criminally guilty of a crime then what is the problem with Trump?


You beat me to it (just got back from a run).

Hillary Clinton was extremely careless and negligent with state secrets and her husband conducted inordinately lucrative speaking engagements with "our friends" in the middle east while Hillary ran the State Department. He ran speaking engagements in countries with governments that openly persecute and exploit Africans. Africans (and Asians) are treated intolerably badly over there. But no, that's true...Clinton (the team) never appointed any (outspoken) white supremacists to anything.

Is that truly the only problem you have with Trump?

If there's anything else, I guess we should just chalk it up to "Trump derangement syndrome", right?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 17 2016, 03:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 17 2016, 03:42 PM
Post #43


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



The problems that any reasonable person has with Donald J. Trump going from NBC evening host to Commander in Chief could fill volumes and as I said to Gray Seal the case against Clinton is 90% innuendo 10% minutiae.

Meanwhile the case against Trump is essentially his entire campaign. Pick any moment of it and it was a hideous betrayal of everything Americans claim to hold dear.

ETA:

Honestly the question is basically "other than that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?"

Is that my "only problem". That is a mighty disappointing response to the admission that never again can America take the moral high ground on tolerance in the world.

The sheer shame of it should silence anyone who dare claim this nation treats all of its citizens fairly.

This post has been edited by turnea: Nov 17 2016, 03:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 17 2016, 04:00 PM
Post #44


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Very interesting article from a non-Trump supporter

QUOTE
Trump made gains among blacks. He made big among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.

Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on.

(snip)

I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.

I avoided pushing this point any more since last October because I didn’t want to look like I was supporting Trump, or accidentally convince anyone else to support Trump. But since we’re past the point where that matters anymore, I want to present my case.

I realize that all of this is going to make me sound like a crazy person and put me completely at odds with every respectable thinker in the media, but luckily, being a crazy person at odds with every respectable thinker in the media has been a pretty good ticket to predictive accuracy lately...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 17 2016, 04:03 PM
Post #45


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I'd suggest taking a look at multiple exit polls. In particular they are known to be bad at estimating Latino voters.
More to the point if you really think that minorities went out last week to vote for a man who had to be forced to denounce the KKK the by all means operate on that presumption.

I think I've separated fact from fiction as much as I can here. The rest is waiting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 17 2016, 05:05 PM
Post #46


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 17 2016, 12:03 PM) *
I'd suggest taking a look at multiple exit polls. In particular they are known to be bad at estimating Latino voters.


Could you provide a link to those exit polls?
This is the one referenced in the article

QUOTE
More to the point if you really think that minorities went out last week to vote for a man who had to be forced to denounce the KKK the by all means operate on that presumption.


I provided my personal experience (per the Latino vote) earlier. This exit poll reflects it pretty well.

This graph from the Pew Research center is less comprehensive (only race, not gender specific) but its results are similar.

(oops...checking further it looks like they are the same)

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 17 2016, 05:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Nov 17 2016, 05:25 PM
Post #47


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,397
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



I can not see the difference between your fact, Trump has white supremacist on his team, to the fact that Clinton was surrounded by people who cared less about following security rules they expected others to adhere to. Either is subject to opinion. I understand you care more about a hint of racism than you do about political protection for some and not others. We all have our prejudices for this value or that.

For me, the list of actions and behaviors concerning Clinton hit my buttons when I learn the facts about Clinton. I care about politicians using their office for political gain. I care about repeatedly being dishonest with the public. I care when a politicians sees the public as beneath themselves.

It seems to be, it comes around to policy. If you like their policy, much can be overlooked. I do not think Clinton supporters care when politician lie. I do not think Clinton supporters care about sex impropriety. I do not think racism is a great concern. These are all issues which are pulled off the shelf to justify the authoritarian policies which favor themselves. Policy which gives themselves advantage is the real motivation.

More people are realizing these advantage seeking policies are no advantage at all. These policies of federalized healthcare and free education may sound good at first but most people are being hurt by them. This fact is being learned by a greater percentage of voters. Voters have been fooled but they will not be fooled again and again forever. Both the Republican and Democrat Parties will fail when the public is educated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Nov 17 2016, 06:29 PM
Post #48


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



gray Seal

QUOTE
I can not see the difference between your fact, Trump has white supremacist on his team, to the fact that Clinton was surrounded by people who cared less about following security rules they expected others to adhere to. Either is subject to opinion.


Very well said.. and very much the point to both you. Mrs P and others.

I remember having a debate with Dingo recently, but not being able to go in depth what it means to understand the psychology of a conservative. Not to digress or generalize too much.

I truly believe that you CAN'T see the difference.

Did Mrs. Clinton unintentionally mishandle a very small amount of classified material? Yes she did. absolutely.

Does Trump keep White Nationalist in high regard? Yes he does.

Well to use your logic and Mrs P logic, if I have it right. "They are both unethical improper behavior"

"I mean getting sage advise from a racist or letting your house keeper print, unknowingly, emails that were classified.. I mean that's just 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other!!"

You and many like you can't tell the difference from a moral or ethical perspective or the effect it has on Americans.

Same goes with Benghazi. A tragedy for 4 people to lose their life. But to politicize and place it on her doorstep... You all don't put 9/11 on Bush's doorstep.. no terrorists did that. 4 Americans died, 4. Bush lies about the Iraq war and the WMD he is so sure Iraq has... and Hundreds of thousands are now dead thanks to that decision... maybe millions when you start looking at the consequences of that choice in the past 15 years.

But you guys can't see the difference. Why can't you all see the difference? Why can't you see the VAST difference in "ethics" between mishandling classified material and actively speaking in a bigoted fashion and forging alliances with White Nationalists?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 17 2016, 07:32 PM
Post #49


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Nov 17 2016, 02:29 PM) *
Well to use your logic and Mrs P logic, if I have it right. "They are both unethical improper behavior"

"I mean getting sage advise from a racist or letting your house keeper print, unknowingly, emails that were classified.. I mean that's just 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other!!"

You and many like you can't tell the difference from a moral or ethical perspective or the effect it has on Americans.


Security is not an ethical concern to me. Security is very much a vested interest to me, and it should be to everyone. Allowing easy access to classified information is harmful, and there is no way to determine just how harmful. If an asset is compromised in a foreign enemy country we are't likely to hear about it.
I do find that far more dangerous and the potential for catastrophe greater with that behavior than Trump sitting in front of the camera with a taco and the caption "Lookit me! I LOVE hispanics!!" Yes, I recognize him as a bigot.

QUOTE
Same goes with Benghazi. A tragedy for 4 people to lose their life. But to politicize and place it on her doorstep... You all don't put 9/11 on Bush's doorstep.. no terrorists did that. 4 Americans died, 4. Bush lies about the Iraq war and the WMD he is so sure Iraq has... and Hundreds of thousands are now dead thanks to that decision... maybe millions when you start looking at the consequences of that choice in the past 15 years.


I cannot remember criticizing anyone for Benghazi. i'm about as sure as can be I didn't.

Edited to add: Droop, remember the thread you started on state secrets a while back?
I wasn't able to find it but I stated my opinion on the matter then and it remains the same.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 17 2016, 07:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Nov 17 2016, 08:09 PM
Post #50


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Security is not an ethical concern to me. Security is very much a vested interest to me, and it should be to everyone. Allowing easy access to classified information is harmful, and there is no way to determine just how harmful. If an asset is compromised in a foreign enemy country we are't likely to hear about it.
I do find that far more dangerous and the potential for catastrophe greater with that behavior than Trump sitting in front of the camera with a taco and the caption "Lookit me! I LOVE hispanics!!" Yes, I recognize him as a bigot.



Security... Well security is a word that streeeeetches far and wide. Security IS a vested interest to... well... everyone! So again we are back to the same point I am trying to make.

Hillary wasn't supposed to have classified material on her server, she was not using her server as a classified system. If classified material did get on the server it was unintentional. You have had a lifetime being around the military, correct? I'm not sure but I presume you may have hear of these things: Spillage, Red team\tiger team, security inspection .

So a spillage is when material of a higher classification makes it to a system not meant to handle that level of classification. I've seen a lot of unintentional spillages, (some are intentional,)in my career, but I have never seen an FBI or any criminal investigation following it.

Tiger team or Red teams... actually try to break in, either physically or logically, and they do.. very well. They are very creative at social engineering attacks. During out briefs they even tell you how they did it. And I'm not saying that people don't get in trouble cause they acted irresponsibly , but I am saying.. they aren't criminally investigated.

Inspection teams... forget about it... its their job to find dirt... they find dirt!! You get your score, they list teir finding of your security short comings, you get X amount of days to fix it. Here is what I never seen happen.. a criminal investigation because an inspection team found security shortcomings.




So how serious are you about "security". Serious enough to have criminal investigations whenever there is mishandling of security or classified documents. If you work around this stuff you know the minor infractions that happen daily, and you know cause you know when the inspectors are coming managers are running around all of a sudden making sure stuff is happening that they weren't making sure of a week ago...lol. "Are those CDs labeled?!?!"

But again, that's the point, right? You have to blow this Clinton scandal up to "She put our National Security at risk!!" "We could have all died level!!" and once you do that you go.... "I mean, he a bigot...but look at what Hillary did!!"




But if I were to ask you "specifically" what or who exactly did Hillary jeopardize... your answer would be what???


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 17 2016, 08:26 PM
Post #51


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Nov 17 2016, 04:09 PM) *
But if I were to ask you "specifically" what or who exactly did Hillary jeopardize... your answer would be what???


That is an impossible question to answer. There is no way to know, and we are unlikely to ever know.
We might see consequences, but we will not know the source of those consequences. Years ago I said that keeping no fly zones out over Iraq and parking our forces in Saudi was a bad bad plan, and folks pointed to the fact we hadn't lost anyone (no one was shot down directly) and said, "See!?! It's going fine..."

I don't know the consequences of selling all that military kit to nefarious actors either.
But I know it will be a bad, bad deal for our soldiers if we ever have to send them out there against it.

That doesn't even touch on the mess we were actively creating in Syria.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 17 2016, 08:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 18 2016, 01:01 AM
Post #52


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 17 2016, 10:42 AM) *
...
... Pick any moment of [the entire Trump campaign] and it was a hideous betrayal of everything Americans claim to hold dear.
...
... never again can America take the moral high ground on tolerance in the world.

The sheer shame of it should silence anyone who dare claim this nation treats all of its citizens fairly.

Are you under the impression that, by virtue of Trump's election, we will usher in a French-style ban on the wearing of burkas in public? Denmark-style restrictions on elective abortions after 12 weeks (as opposed to our country's current threshold of 24)? Morocco-style 3 year imprisonment for homosexuality? Indonesia-style restrictions on atheists getting ID cards and/or a Saudi-style decree branding them as terrorists? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, ... etcetera?

If so, I highly suggest to you:

1.
Get a bloody grip.

2.
Come to terms with the fact that millions of voters (in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan, Florida, etc.) who voted for Trump had also voted for Obama (a sizable proportion of them did so twice, i.e. both in '08 and '12).

3. Come to terms with the fact that, despite Obama's gloweringly admonishing African-Americans that he would consider it a personal insult if they didn't turn out to vote for Hillary, a sizable proportion of them responded by either staying home or actually voting for ... gasp ... Trump.

EDITED TO ADD:


Can anyone point to ANY President in our nation's history who turned to the people (oops, I mean, a segment of the people) who had voted for him and told them that he would consider it a personal insult if said segment of the people didn't turn out to vote for his chosen candidate (i.e. "successor") the way they had turned out to vote for him?



This post has been edited by akaCG: Nov 18 2016, 02:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Nov 18 2016, 03:31 AM
Post #53


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 17 2016, 03:26 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Nov 17 2016, 04:09 PM) *
But if I were to ask you "specifically" what or who exactly did Hillary jeopardize... your answer would be what???


That is an impossible question to answer. There is no way to know, and we are unlikely to ever know.
We might see consequences, but we will not know the source of those consequences.


Exactly. Thank you. You don't know of any consequence, you don't know of any effect. None of America does. So we have this security deficiency in the form of classified spillage into an unclass system. Since when did this qualify for an FBI investigation... I have no clue. It was requested, it was done, and it was all done for politics.

I have so many military friends in the IT field who would talk like you talk and I could just ask them one question..."How many spillages have you been through and how many times have you seen a person arrested..." I won't say the question shuts them up... but it shuts them down.. they go spinning off in another direction. Because THEY KNOW and they know I know... and just to make clear I'm not asking you to believe any of that I just said. You have experience... go from your experience... and lets go back to the point I was making in the previous post.

When a unintentional spillage happens it is not typical to call in investigators. Yes, there was mishandling of classified information, but the reaction is not call the police. Actually you tell the security officer, which is not a LEO job, or maybe the security operations center(SOC) or maybe you tell your Information System Security Officer(ISSO), in any event you tell some local employee so that they can start using the procedures to "clean" the "spillage". And they clean it. You don't call the FBI or CSI... not even the MP's for an unintentional spillage.

When a red team\tiger team is able to breach security whether that be a physical or logical... they have EXPOSED a vulnerability, we have no way of knowing the effects or the consequence they don't go report to the FBI and have a investigation

When you have inspection they show all forms of possible threat vector because certain procedures aren't being followed, certain policies should be implemented aren't being implemented... or people just doing things they shouldn't do. These vulnerabilities could have possibly been exploited, who knows the possible consequence. You know what happens. The leaders are presented with... a score. No FBI investigation.

However, that's the real world. And we are in the reality of "OMG look at what Hillary did!!!"

So let me ensure you I understand the emotional charge, but where is the rationale behind the "OMG the maid may have seen the classified material" emotional reaction.

Lets change gears. I apologize for using the word "you all" I'm not really trying to personalize it to any one individual. But its a part of why my opinion is what it is as it pertains to this debate.

The problem is not so much the Democrat brand as much as it is the electorate. You can't prevent apathy. You can't prevent irrationality. My biggest fear of the Democrats is that they over correct to try to "win".

If the greater evil, between bigotry or mishandling classified material with no known consequence, to a voter is emails server trumps racism, then that vote has to be let go by the Democratic Brand. I would prefer they lose than win that constituency.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 18 2016, 01:09 PM
Post #54


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1) Security is the fundamental primary purpose of government.
(and I've mentioned this innumerable times in this forum, and have remained constant about this belief, I didn't just start thinking this way in the past year or two)

2) You are highly unlikely to find (I sincerely believe this to be true) a white person from Trump's generation who isn't a bigot. Just about every president we've ever had was one. To quote Jon Stewart, "Have you heard the nixon tapes?". I believe Hillary and Bill are bigots too (but they know how to market themselves to the public, which requires a better ruse, like good lawyers turned politicians).
But if Trump tries to legislate bigoted policy (policies that violate the 14th amendment), then I will be right there fighting against it.
And I would support his impeachment (real impeachment, not just going back to work the next day with a smile a la team Clinton).
Time will tell.

From the looks of the exit polls (as mentioned earlier), a larger percentage of minorities voted for Trump than Romney.


This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 18 2016, 02:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 18 2016, 02:49 PM
Post #55


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 18 2016, 08:09 AM) *
...
From the looks of the exit polls (as mentioned earlier), a larger percentage of minorities voted for Trump than Romney.

And that's why you're seeing all these attempts to foment "White supremacists are coming! White supremacists are coming!" hysteria on the part of the Libs/Dems/Progs regarding the upcoming Trump administration. His repeatedly pointing to the deplorable state of urban African-American and Hispanic communities and to the fact that Democrats have been in charge of them for decades upon decades (Chicago, for instance, hasn't had a Republican mayor since Al Capone went to jail; other examples here) is not a message that the Dems/Libs/Progs can afford to allow to begin resonating in said communities, for their "brand" will suffer even more than it has already at the ballot box.

The possibility that more and more voters in said communities will begin to answer the question that Trump repeatedly directed at them during his campaign - "What the hell do you have to lose [by no longer voting in such lock-step for the Democratic party, which has taken your votes for granted all these years]? - with "Hmmm. Yeah, might as well give it a try." must be giving the Dems/Libs/Progs the cold sweats.

EDITED TO ADD the last paragraph.

This post has been edited by akaCG: Nov 18 2016, 02:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Nov 18 2016, 04:50 PM
Post #56


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Mrs P (and to some degree AKACG)

I don't completely disagree with some with what you are saying but I have still have comments.

QUOTE
1) Security is the fundamental primary purpose of government.
(and I've mentioned this innumerable times in this forum, and have remained constant about this belief, I didn't just start thinking this way in the past year or two)
Agreed. But this is a case where you are saying something... that doesn't mean anything. This is my point to you. Security in its definition, and more importantly, in its APPLICATION is too broad for your statement to mean anything. My security may be completely opposed to your security bringing us in CONFLICT. I'm not in this word alone, you're not in this world alone. Your family is not my family. Your needs in security are not necessarily my needs in security vice versa. In a society of equality we can come closer to getting those needs the same, we don't live in that society.

In our world, you could be followed home by a Black stranger and if you tried to flee and he got out on foot and chase you... you could kill him. Pull out that great "equalizer" you love bang bang and take his life. The law would protect you and provide you "security"

In our world, a non Black could chase a Black teen home cause he never seen him and if that kid just started hitting that man with his fists, not even shoot at him, that person could kill that unarmed teen and the law would protect him. That doesn't provide security for me and my Black children.

COINTELPRO was a secret government program that destroyed Black political movements. CIA ran secret programs proliferating drugs in inner cities. Neither of these provided security for Black Americans.

So, you see I hope, that security is important to everyone, but just saying that doesn't help anyone to understand the reaction to Hillary mishandling of classified materials. My points I was making to you was to show you, if even to yourself, that mishandling of classified materials(spillages) and overall security lapses occur quite frequently.. especially when you are in an environment that deals with this sort of information. My other point is that the "normal" reaction to mishandling classified material is not an FBI investigation. The reaction and the investigation was just special treatment for Clinton.

So yes... security is important.

QUOTE
2) You are highly unlikely to find (I sincerely believe this to be true) a white person from Trump's generation who isn't a bigot. Just about every president we've ever had was one. To quote Jon Stewart, "Have you heard the nixon tapes?". I believe Hillary and Bill are bigots too (but they know how to market themselves to the public, which requires a better ruse, like good lawyers turned politicians).
But if Trump tries to legislate bigoted policy (policies that violate the 14th amendment), then I will be right there fighting against it.
And I would support his impeachment (real impeachment, not just going back to work the next day with a smile a la team Clinton).
Time will tell.
Clap my hands to the truth. You mean "Super predator" Hillary is a bigot?!?!? Nooooo You mean "Crime bill" Clintons are bigots!?!?! You don't say!! You mean Hillary that turned to racial politics when the Black man started whooping her in the 2008 primaries is a bigot? Get the mmmm-mmm out of here? laugh.gif

A little tongue and cheek.

I truly don't know if Bill, Hillary or Donald are actual bigots. But we can agree that all of them understand racial politics and are wiling to play racial politics to get elected. You can put them all in the same pot in that regard, agreed.

But you make a great point that goes to the core of this debate IMO, but for you it was a side note in parentheses...lol. The debate is about the democratic brand. The Clintons, even if they are bigots (who knows right a lot of evidence to suggest they are) don't market themselves as bigots. The democratic brand does not market itself to bigots... the Republican brand does!!! And Donald Trump exposed in the primary that bigotry isn't some small weak part of the Republican party it is the dominant force of the right wing.

The democratic brand is trying to sell itself as if it is NOT bigoted, now many of the old White Democrats may be just as bigoted as the old White Republican. But the Republicans are trying to sell bigotry. It wants to create a new generation of bigots so they can harness that energy. And no, I'm not saying that every Republican is a bigot, I'm saying that they don't have an issue with Republicans harnessing the energy of bigots and xenophobes... and not just harnessing it.. but intensifying, propagating, and exploiting it. That's why I call it dark energy.

Now we are back to my point... the electorate. The reaction from so many teens around this nation is hopeful to me. The Republican just successfully won the Whitehouse on a deflated electorate with the most "outwardly" bigoted candidate. In other words, you just lit a fire under the tail of a lot of people. However, Trump's question of "What you have to lose" now needs an answer. He won. I'm a Black man who want him to be successful in uplifting the working class. Can he do it? I hope so. If he does he will douse the fire. But like you say... wait and see.. its not like we can do anything else anyways.

See but the democratic brand needs to continue to be the brand for the working class.

QUOTE
From the looks of the exit polls (as mentioned earlier), a larger percentage of minorities voted for Trump than Romney.


Yeah, but how many actual minorities is that? I get the point you are trying to make here, but both Latino and Black vote turnout is way down. I've tried searching for actual numbers to see if there is a huge increase or decrease. My theory is that for Obama you saw above average minority turnout that turned out FOR Obama. And in this election you lost the sheer number of minorities that cam out to vote. Personally, I think, just an opinion because I can't find the statistics of actual numbers, is that you have close to the same amount of minorities voting for Republicans as you have in the past when it was 2 White candidates running for office.












Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 19 2016, 01:08 PM
Post #57


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Nov 18 2016, 12:50 PM) *
QUOTE
From the looks of the exit polls (as mentioned earlier), a larger percentage of minorities voted for Trump than Romney.


Yeah, but how many actual minorities is that? I get the point you are trying to make here, but both Latino and Black vote turnout is way down. I've tried searching for actual numbers to see if there is a huge increase or decrease. My theory is that for Obama you saw above average minority turnout that turned out FOR Obama. And in this election you lost the sheer number of minorities that cam out to vote. Personally, I think, just an opinion because I can't find the statistics of actual numbers, is that you have close to the same amount of minorities voting for Republicans as you have in the past when it was 2 White candidates running for office.


I'm sure fewer minorities came to the polls. The overall percentage is just that...a percentage of those who showed up.
But (again) my old neighborhood in south Florida gave me a pretty good insight into the pulse of the Puerto Rican/Cuban group. Our neighborhood was probably 50 percent Latino or more, most first generation Americans. And they were (by and large) Trump supporters. This is true even BEFORE he won the primaries**. Anecdotes aren't evidence but we do see the exit poll data and it's pretty well aligned with my observations. It would be interesting to see the per-state breakdown.

**I might add, this is the reason I registered Republican at the time. I didn't want Trump to win and I was kind of surprised to see he had such a following with Rubio and Cruz in the running. So I voted Rubio (even though I wanted Kasich to win and didn't like Rubio I wanted to thwart Trump's chances, and Rubio was the best option there).


This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 19 2016, 01:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 25th, 2018 - 02:06 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.