Hillary Clinton is not remotely comparable to Donald Trump. Unless and until the Democratic Party nominates, say, one of the Kardashians, this is not a "both sides" phenomenon.
Bitch slapped Republicans
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
Trump's message is the same as Bill and Harry Reid in '96. They must have gone through electoral diversity training.
Anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton votes for selling out the United States for the personal wealth of Billary. I'm sure you're a proud Republican.
Where did I say I was voting for Hillary?
Yes, I've been a lifelong Republican, something carpet bagger Trump never has been until he needed a party to hijack.
You have a long history of posts that prove you aren't able to think or write coherently. You disagreeing with me is a compliment.
I've added actual content and you know exactly what I'm talking about or else you would have been a Hillary supporter. We're looking at a candidate being investigated for the unprecedented brazen decision to have a private email server as Secretary of State at the same time speaking fees were being paid to her husband. This in conjunction with a "charity" that nobody can actually identify who benefits or what the business model is. At the same time their top money guy Terry McAuliffe is being investigated for illegal campaign contributions. Those are facts. Are you disputing them or just flaming the poster?
She could face a criminal trial, or at best be outed as terribly defiant of government protocols and wreckless with classified information. Which part of this do you dispute?
Are you a Bernie supporter? Because that's the way a lot of your posts have read.
And again you can't or don't address the facts I posted.
On the racial politics, David French does a pretty good job in describing where that originated and I think that Trump and his brand of politics is fairly understandable given the level of discourse chosen by the left in this country. Gone is the seeking of the ideal of judging by content of character, that has all been thrown out in favor of judging solely on race.
French:
I can't recall the first time I heard the phrase “white male” hissed as if it were some form of particularly vile insult. I know it happened in law school, where it was used as a short-hand way of saying that I should be silent, that my views were not welcome. Over time, I learned that, to a certain set of people, there was something positively wrong with being white.
"We" were the great privileged oppressors of history. And "we" were the great privileged oppressors of the present. Our law schools are, in many ways, incubators for the identity politics that dominate the social-justice Left. For those soaked in progressive identity politics, skin color was a stand-in for virtue.
It was impossible for a black person to be racist; it was impossible for a white person not to be. Any in-depth discussion of history had to acknowledge past injustice. It was tough even to talk about, say, Omaha Beach without in the next breath acknowledging the systematic segregation in the World War II–era U.S. Army.
Since my law-school days, the problem has only gotten worse. Now the true cultural and historical demons are white -- gasp! -- "cisgender" males, and any white cisgender woman who doesn’t appropriately check her privilege. The ticket to white acceptability in progressive politics is a form of self-loathing: a constant attitude of repentance not just for the sins of the past but also for the benefits of the present, which are presumably enjoyed only or mainly because of the plunder and exploitation of "brown bodies."
Oddly enough, this self-loathing doesn't diminish the power of the white progressive. The movement is still chock-full of rich white men and women. Indeed, they mainly lead the American Left. They simply purport to hate and mock "white males: with the same intensity as do their black friends.
But while there’s no price paid by Harvard Law students who "check their privilege," or by Silicon Valley execs who enthusiastically embrace the latest trends in identity politics -- they and their families will do just fine -- the rest of white America is not so fortunate. We're left with the odd reality in which white kids who live in trailer parks are "privileged," while the sons and daughters of wealthy black doctors are "oppressed" -- in which the legitimate concerns of white working-class and middle-class Americans are dismissed as misguided at best (after all, they’re privileged) and racist at worst.
Here's the problem: Progressives don’t like to admit this, but identity politics work as the mirror image of white supremacy -- compressing the extraordinarily rich and complex histories of nations, continents, and cultures into one characteristic: skin color. For the white supremacist, white people are natural-born victors. For the identity-politics leftist, white people are natural-born predators.
...
When identity politics rule, racism and polarization thrive. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a resurgence in outright white nationalism-- embodied in the so-called alt-right --at the same time that America's leftist cultural elite are decisively rejecting Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that Americans be judged by the "content of their character" and not the color of their skin. When one side decides that skin color is a virtue, then -- as sure as the sun rises in the east -- the other side will eagerly agree....
The answer to misguided identity politics isn't more misguided identity politics.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435567/identity-politics-race-ripping-us-apart
I believe that Trump is the result of 2 things: the leadership of the GOP completely misreading the economic priorities of their base and the identity politics pushed by the Democrats. When a Lilly white lady uses faux heritage to get ahead in life and then has the gall to talk down on others, there is a set of the country who enjoys seeing her get called on it and they enjoy seeing it being done in the same fashion as has been done to them for most of my adult life. It isn't presidential in the least but it is red meat to hear a race huckster like Warren get called for it (Pocahantas). Trump is merely a mouthpiece for frustration.
French:
I can't recall the first time I heard the phrase “white male” hissed as if it were some form of particularly vile insult. I know it happened in law school, where it was used as a short-hand way of saying that I should be silent, that my views were not welcome. Over time, I learned that, to a certain set of people, there was something positively wrong with being white.
"We" were the great privileged oppressors of history. And "we" were the great privileged oppressors of the present. Our law schools are, in many ways, incubators for the identity politics that dominate the social-justice Left. For those soaked in progressive identity politics, skin color was a stand-in for virtue.
It was impossible for a black person to be racist; it was impossible for a white person not to be. Any in-depth discussion of history had to acknowledge past injustice. It was tough even to talk about, say, Omaha Beach without in the next breath acknowledging the systematic segregation in the World War II–era U.S. Army.
Since my law-school days, the problem has only gotten worse. Now the true cultural and historical demons are white -- gasp! -- "cisgender" males, and any white cisgender woman who doesn’t appropriately check her privilege. The ticket to white acceptability in progressive politics is a form of self-loathing: a constant attitude of repentance not just for the sins of the past but also for the benefits of the present, which are presumably enjoyed only or mainly because of the plunder and exploitation of "brown bodies."
Oddly enough, this self-loathing doesn't diminish the power of the white progressive. The movement is still chock-full of rich white men and women. Indeed, they mainly lead the American Left. They simply purport to hate and mock "white males: with the same intensity as do their black friends.
But while there’s no price paid by Harvard Law students who "check their privilege," or by Silicon Valley execs who enthusiastically embrace the latest trends in identity politics -- they and their families will do just fine -- the rest of white America is not so fortunate. We're left with the odd reality in which white kids who live in trailer parks are "privileged," while the sons and daughters of wealthy black doctors are "oppressed" -- in which the legitimate concerns of white working-class and middle-class Americans are dismissed as misguided at best (after all, they’re privileged) and racist at worst.
Here's the problem: Progressives don’t like to admit this, but identity politics work as the mirror image of white supremacy -- compressing the extraordinarily rich and complex histories of nations, continents, and cultures into one characteristic: skin color. For the white supremacist, white people are natural-born victors. For the identity-politics leftist, white people are natural-born predators.
...
When identity politics rule, racism and polarization thrive. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a resurgence in outright white nationalism-- embodied in the so-called alt-right --at the same time that America's leftist cultural elite are decisively rejecting Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that Americans be judged by the "content of their character" and not the color of their skin. When one side decides that skin color is a virtue, then -- as sure as the sun rises in the east -- the other side will eagerly agree....
The answer to misguided identity politics isn't more misguided identity politics.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435567/identity-politics-race-ripping-us-apart
I believe that Trump is the result of 2 things: the leadership of the GOP completely misreading the economic priorities of their base and the identity politics pushed by the Democrats. When a Lilly white lady uses faux heritage to get ahead in life and then has the gall to talk down on others, there is a set of the country who enjoys seeing her get called on it and they enjoy seeing it being done in the same fashion as has been done to them for most of my adult life. It isn't presidential in the least but it is red meat to hear a race huckster like Warren get called for it (Pocahantas). Trump is merely a mouthpiece for frustration.
Last edited:
Thanks for admitting that. Trump is not about to be indicted. He will be the next president so some of you need to accept reality. I know reality is hard for the left to accept thus the fantasy land everything is free song they sing every election.
Correct it had to do with the fact you wanted to vote for someone whose hands aren't perpetually dirty and is a refreshing alternative to the Clinton money machine.
Goat, a vote for Bernie is a vote for change from the status quo. I've never tried to influence anyone's vote on here, I am just pointing out how in order to vote for Hillary someone would have to be OK with selling out any moral grounding they have.
On "raising my game", look at this thread, Rockfish1 chides white people for voting and labels everyone who supports Trump as a racist. You might ask him to raise his game and the responses will likely follow.
We had a discussion last month about the question of union members leaving the Democratic Party. At least part of the reason is summed up by Bill Clinton (and by extension, Hillary), NAFTA. It is something Trump has tapped into greatly. I'm not a protectionist, but it is clear there are losers in the globalized economy and those people are most often blue-collar union members. What's ironic about it is that the GOP was the champion of free trade, until now.
LOL. That's a total joke. Did you see how they determined "racial resentment"?
We measured racial resentment with four specific questions asking respondents about the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statements:
- Irish, Italians, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.
- Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.
- Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.
- It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.
One's opinions of these questions aren't actually indicative of "racial resentment" in anything but an extraordinarily cartoonish, one-dimensional view of the world.
For starters, they force-feed respondents one-size-fits-all racialist premises -- where blacks (and whites, etc.) are taken as a whole. I'm sure there are plenty of people who look at people as members of a particular race rather than as unique individuals. But to presume such a perspective, particularly so as to ascribe a label of "racial resentment", is absurd.
And take the last question. You know how I would answer that? I'd say: yes, people's outcomes are largely the product of their general pattern of choices and behaviors throughout their lives. Show me a comprehensive list of any individual person's choices, habits, and such, and I bet I can make some pretty good guesses as to how they're doing financially. Did they finish school? What did their teachers have to say about their work ethic? Did they avoid things like drugs and gambling? What kind of sexual lifestyle do they lead? What kind of attendance record have they demonstrated at school and work? Do they spend more than they earn? Do they have a criminal record? Do they have children out of wedlock?
Oh, and this applies to people of any race. If somebody's white and tends to make bad decisions on these sorts of things, they'll tend to get bad results. If somebody's black and tends to make good decisions on these sorts of things, they'll tend to get good results.
I wonder how Messrs. Enders and Smallpage would categorize that answer in their little cartoon. I can't answer that question. But I can say that anybody who puts stock into "data" produced by such ridiculous methodology is just begging to be misled.
Mmm, not always. Actually, for much of the first half of its existence, the GOP was very much a protectionist party.
"For centuries England has relied on protection, has carried it to extremes and has obtained satisfactory results from it. There is no doubt that it is to this system that it owes its present strength." -- Ulysses S. Grant
"Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man." -- William McKinley
And, of course, the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930 was passed by Republican majorities in Congress and signed by a Republican president.
True, but the party of Reagan was the free trade party. It is interesting how issues switch back and forth between the parties. Right now the presumed nominees are a Democratic free-trader and a Republican not free-trader. One will play much better in the rust belt than the other.
Why am I not surprised that you are back and enthusiastically supporting Trump. The only regular conservative on here to do so, by the way. The fact that you find Trump refreshing is pretty much all I need to know. A reality star that acts like an adolescent bully throwing out insults and name calling to everyone that disagrees with him is refreshing? oYou sure don't break the mold of my three type of Trump supporters, not very intelligent, racist, blowhard. You can choose which category you fit into.
Agreed. Personally, I've come full circle. NAFTA was passed when I was in college and 20 years later we can say it has cost a lot of American jobs and lined the pockets of publicly traded company CEO's partially leading to an income disparity gap. We've got to change thes bad trade deals and level the playing field for Americans.
I don't know we have a lot of choices. I believe Apple has 64% of their sales overseas. They aren't going to risk a trade war that represents that much of their business. I've heard from other friends at fortune 500 companies that their total overseas markets are bigger than the US market. I fear a trade war is pretty identical to a real war, no one wins.
There was a recent Bloomberg poll showing Ms. Clinton with a 7% lead with middle class ($30K - $75K) voters in the rust belt (MI, OH, PA and WI). Bernie was the most popular of the listed pols with Bill and Obama following.
Who will fight harder for the Middle Class Clinton 43% Trump 29%
Cares more about people like me Clinton 39% Trump 26%
Shares my values Clinton 35% Trump 28%
On issues raised about each candidate:
The top two for Hillary:
Opponents say that Clinton lied about the cause of the Benghazi attacks, after
failing to protect the US Ambassador and other embassy workers
there - 51%
Critics say that Clinton’s decisions as Secretary of State helped allow ISIS to form
and grow out of control 49%
The top two for Donald:
Trump has called women names like “pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs,” and “disgusting.”
He’s called Fox News’ Megyn
Kelley a “bimbo” and a “lightweight,” insulted
Carly Fiorina’s and Heidi Cruz’s appearance, and has made lewd comments
about other women - 60%
Trump’s tax plan would spend three trillion dollars on tax cuts over 10 years for
people like him who make over a million dollars - 57%
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-26/bloomberg-politics-rust-belt-poll
All I can say is that has not been my experience having lived in rural white areas, in predominantly black areas and very mixed areas. I have lived, for several months, in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Washington, D.C, Virginia, South Carolina and Idaho. I have frequented establishments that were predominantly black, establishments that were predominantly white, establishments that were predominantly bike bars, establishments that have a sizable LGBT customer base. There are always exceptions, but that has not been my experience for my many years.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You are either a fool or have been played for a fool. See the link below for how the veteran's organizations magically received (days ago - after journalist investigations revealed he didn’t raise what he had claimed) overnight checks summing to the amount Trump previously claimed to have raised and donatedmonths ago.
What does his continued deception and manipulation of you say about you?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/donald-trump-tantrum-media-role-louis/index.html
Honestly I think you see it more on the academic and social media side. I often find that the most interesting thing about most of what passes for news these days is the comment section. People say all the things they think in their head but would never say in polite company.
Well...I'd say that your answer is non-esponsive to the statement you are being asked to consider. You are talking about choices and the statement you are referring to discusses effort or how "hard" blacks "try". It's a pretty specific question and not really that difficult to come to an answer. If you agree with the statement, then you would indicate a degree of support for the belief that there is a racial "effort gap". If you don't agree with the statement, then you don't. Seems pretty straightforward. Choices and effort are two different things and the survey isn't looking for why blacks lag economically behind whites overall. It's measuring racial resentment. While I don't put tons of faith in surveys in general, your rant doesn't really address the merits of this particular survey very well.
Social Media, in my opinion, is a useless example. A) it's a wasteland and B) French appeared to be writing about personal comments such "I can't recall the first time I heard the phrase “white male” hissed as if it were some form of particularly vile insult."
That may be true about academia, but it appears to go both ways. Ted Cruz was widely reported to be quite an a** when he was at Harvard law School.
Yep. It sure is. That's central to my point, in fact. The statements force respondents to paint with a broad brush.
And some blacks "try" (however that term is defined) hard, some don't. Same for white people -- some try hard, some don't. And I would refuse to answer with a simple "yes/no" or "agree/disagree" to any statement that characterizes a large group of people as being homogeneous....in this way or just about any other.
If the answers boil down to agreeing or disagreeing with any or all of those statements, then all answers are necessarily wrong -- because they are rooted in generalities.
Let's say I asked you...Agree or disagree: black comedians are serial rapists. How would you answer that? The truth is that we can be pretty sure that at least one of them is. But are we going to use Bill Cosby's example to tar, say, Chris Rock? Of course not. On the other side, if we answer "disagree", then are we to just disregard Cosby?
You can't properly answer such questions broadly about any group of people like this.
Except I believe that many white people exert poor effort. I also believe that many black people exert gobs of effort. And I also believe there are people of all races who fit both definitions.
Only if you're wanting to generate a particular result. And that seems pretty clearly what they were trying to do. Perhaps not intentionally, though. It could just be that the authors of this "study" are just as blind to the defects as you apparently are.
Not really. Exerting effort is a choice. So is not exerting effort. Showing up to work everyday on time is effort -- it is also a choice. And, yes, I believe that people who exert more effort, in a more sustained way, will achieve better outcomes than those who do not. But this has absolutely nothing to do with race. The same tenets hold true for black people, white people, Asian people, Hispanic people, and otherwise.
These two guys should be failed for this nonsense, not published. It's a joke.
Wow. You can't possibly be this dense. The issue isn't that there is or isn't a correct answer. The issue is how people respond. It's a survey, not an exam. Presumably, people who answer a certain way to all four questions are more likely than others to harbor some racial resentment toward minorities. This really shouldn't be controversial. It's pretty straight forward.
That's a crappy survey
All it does is to restate political ideology in racial terms.
Suppose this question were asked: "Do you favor giving vouchers at public expense to minority students in failing public schools to attend private school, including parochial schools?" A conservative would likely answer yes, a liberal would likely answer no. Yet, according to this dumb survey, the liberal would be seen as wanting to confine blacks to a poor education and therefore would be a racist.
No kidding. I suppose if we determined "racial resentment" by asking respondents "White policeman specifically target black youths, particularly when they're in the mood to shoot somebody" or "Over the past few years, white people have gotten more than they deserve", then I guess the study would conclude that "racial resentment" tends to favor support for Hillary Clinton.
The thing is: I really believe a lot of people are in denial about their own ideology. That's why I said above that the authors may not have done this intentionally. They actually do view the world in cartoonish ways -- particularly as it relates to race matters.
But, still, the major flaw with these questions is that they require respondents to generalize about entire races of people. If you disagreed with the sentiment in, say, question 4, then you're basically saying that one's efforts don't matter, your lot in life is determined not just by your birth, but your very race. And anybody who actually believes that is a complete idiot. But, in the view of these authors, you have to believe it or else you fall into the category of harboring "racial resentment."
That too
The broadside nature of the questions precludes applying the important nuances you mentioned. That is indeed a crappy survey that produced crappy data.
I agree.....those statements were written in ideological tones. And were very broad. However, I assume the responses were the 0-100 dial type method....so you don't answer yes/no, but rather tilt one way or another. However calling that racial resentment is quite a stretch.
I didn't read the linked article, just the above post...
Two guys who don't know what they're talking about baselessly reject polling data from the prestigious American National Election Survey:
The American National Election Studies is the leading academically-run national survey of voters in the United States, conducted before and after every presidential election. Though the ANES was formally established by a National Science Foundation grant in 1977, the data are a continuation of studies going back to 1948. The study has been based at the University of Michigan since its origin and, since 2005, has been run in partnership with Stanford University. Its principal investigators for the first four years of the partnership were Arthur Lupia and Jon Krosnick. Its current principal investigators are Ted Brader, Vincent Hutchings, Gary Segura, and Simon Jackman.
The consistency of the studies, asking the same questions repeatedly over time, makes it very useful for academic research with the result that it is frequently cited in works of political science. Early ANES data were the basis for The American Voter (1960). Now ANES data are used by numerous scholars, students, and journalists. It is widely considered the "gold standard" of election studies.
On the other hand, the survey shows you things you don't want to see, so it sucks.The consistency of the studies, asking the same questions repeatedly over time, makes it very useful for academic research with the result that it is frequently cited in works of political science. Early ANES data were the basis for The American Voter (1960). Now ANES data are used by numerous scholars, students, and journalists. It is widely considered the "gold standard" of election studies.
You guys are missing the point. The questions aren't intended to measure whether or not an individual respondent harbors racial resentment. They are intended to determine if a specific group of respondents is, overall, more likely to harbor racial resentment. These questions have been asked and tested over the years for their viability in making such a measurement. They have been adjusted for other variables, and still show statistical significance. That you don't like them (or what the results imply) doesn't change the fact that this is rigorous research.
Beat me to it by seconds.Two guys who don't know what they're talking about baselessly reject polling data from the prestigious American National Election Survey:
The American National Election Studies is the leading academically-run national survey of voters in the United States, conducted before and after every presidential election. Though the ANES was formally established by a National Science Foundation grant in 1977, the data are a continuation of studies going back to 1948. The study has been based at the University of Michigan since its origin and, since 2005, has been run in partnership with Stanford University. Its principal investigators for the first four years of the partnership were Arthur Lupia and Jon Krosnick. Its current principal investigators are Ted Brader, Vincent Hutchings, Gary Segura, and Simon Jackman.On the other hand, the survey shows you things you don't want to see, so it sucks.
The consistency of the studies, asking the same questions repeatedly over time, makes it very useful for academic research with the result that it is frequently cited in works of political science. Early ANES data were the basis for The American Voter (1960). Now ANES data are used by numerous scholars, students, and journalists. It is widely considered the "gold standard" of election studies.
Two guys who don't know what they're talking about baselessly reject polling data from the prestigious American National Election Survey:
The American National Election Studies is the leading academically-run national survey of voters in the United States, conducted before and after every presidential election. Though the ANES was formally established by a National Science Foundation grant in 1977, the data are a continuation of studies going back to 1948. The study has been based at the University of Michigan since its origin and, since 2005, has been run in partnership with Stanford University. Its principal investigators for the first four years of the partnership were Arthur Lupia and Jon Krosnick. Its current principal investigators are Ted Brader, Vincent Hutchings, Gary Segura, and Simon Jackman.On the other hand, the survey shows you things you don't want to see, so it sucks.
The consistency of the studies, asking the same questions repeatedly over time, makes it very useful for academic research with the result that it is frequently cited in works of political science. Early ANES data were the basis for The American Voter (1960). Now ANES data are used by numerous scholars, students, and journalists. It is widely considered the "gold standard" of election studies.
If that's the sort of questioning it takes to be considered prestigious, it really gives a bad name to prestige.
It's not even defensible -- which is why I guess you didn't even try to defend it.
REALLY? Everything is free and who do you suppose is going to foot that bill? Just absolute fantasy land.
You're making a category error. Neither you nor I is competent to assess the merits of social science research like this study. Your sense that you know how to do it better than the "gold standard" is just your confirmation bias talking.
I bring impeccable data to support what I say. You rely entirely on your own preconceptions.
Latest posts
-
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza
- Latest: DDE-6-20-23
-
-
