The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-25-2017, 04:01 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
you seem to be completely ignoring the broader phenomenon first to state the obvious fact that a video of one person doing something only shows one person doing something, then to (much like the Clinton campaign) rant about 'Republicans are EVUL' instead of saying anything substantive about the issues raised.
I'm specifically not saying 'Republicans are EVUL'. I'm saying that you're judging a group of millions of people based on the behavior of one person who may or may not be a member of that group. You're doing that for "progressives" Why aren't you doing that for Republicans (more than one of whom is a sheepfucker), or right wingers (more than one of whom thinks Hitler did nothing wrong), or lunch ladies (more than one of whom is married to her cat)? Why do you only do this for progressives? And even if Spice Weasel is right and there are hundreds of people who also think this way, hundreds is still 0% of the total group. Personally, I try not to judge groups by the behavior of the 0%.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #152  
Old 04-25-2017, 11:12 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
I'm specifically not saying 'Republicans are EVUL'.
Yes,you are. When for no good reason you start discussing how many Republicans think Hitler did no wrong, you're clearly just doing the 'Republicans are EVUL' thing.

Quote:
I'm saying that you're judging a group of millions of people based on the behavior of one person who may or may not be a member of that group. You're doing that for "progressives"
I'm talking about actions that a group has taken or refused to condemn and the detrimental effect of those actions on the power of an accusation of 'racism'. I'm not sure what 'judging' you think is going on that has your panties in a bunch, it seems that if I say progressives are anything other than perfect in every way then it upsets you past the point of making a coherent argument.

Quote:
Why aren't you doing that for Republicans (more than one of whom is a sheepfucker), or right wingers (more than one of whom thinks Hitler did nothing wrong), or lunch ladies (more than one of whom is married to her cat)?
Why do you only do this for progressives?
Because progressives are the ones who do what I'm talking about and Republicans aren't. It's really that simple.

Last edited by Pantastic; 04-25-2017 at 11:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-26-2017, 02:52 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 14,493
Republicans don't throw around wild accusations of being "unAmerican" or "bringing sharia law"? Really?

Yeah, "racism" is an overbroad term. But much of the GOP, maybe top to bottom, is in Alex Jones conspiracy theory land now.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-26-2017, 07:51 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Yes,you are. When for no good reason you start discussing how many Republicans think Hitler did no wrong, you're clearly just doing the 'Republicans are EVUL' thing.
Congratulations, that's basically exactly wrong. The actual point I was making is that you can't judge groups by the actions of the 0% (for example, the 0% of Republicans who think Hitler did nothing wrong). That's my whole point. I'm not sure how you missed it.

Quote:
Because progressives are the ones who do what I'm talking about and Republicans aren't. It's really that simple.
Well, if we're judging groups by the actions of the 0%, then how do you address the fact that 0% of Republicans think Hitler did nothing wrong? That seems much worse than what 0% of progressives are doing.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-26-2017, 08:46 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Republicans don't throw around wild accusations of being "unAmerican" or "bringing sharia law"? Really?
Did you post this in the wrong thread? I'm not aware of anyone who made the claim you appear to be disagreeing with. It would likely be off-topic if they did, since this thread is about the Clinton campaign and not a Republican's campaign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Well, if we're judging groups by the actions of the 0%, then how do you address the fact that 0% of Republicans think Hitler did nothing wrong? That seems much worse than what 0% of progressives are doing.
I don't know who the 'we' you're talking about is, but you seem to be responding to arguments that I didn't make with criticism that doesn't make any sense. If I assume you're actually responding to me, it appears that you believe that the Clinton campaign's accusations of racism were an effective strategy, or that the term hasn't been overused to the point that it's lost it's effectiveness, and consider me saying so to be judging a group by the actions of the 0%. Or perhaps that it's unfair for me to criticize a part of Clinton's campaign as being ineffective without also criticizing Trump's campaign at the same time for sort of the same thing. You also keep asserting that 0% of people make statements that I have encountered multiple times (and multiple times on this board) and that have received national media coverage, which seems at odds with reality.

None of this really makes any sense or has any relevance to the discussion, so enjoy yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-27-2017, 03:37 AM
Princhester Princhester is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Well, when Hillary Clinton said that half of Trump's supporters were deplorable and irredeemable because they were racist or sexist or xenophobic or whatever, I had to guess at which individuals she was railing against.
Nope, you really didn't understand k9bfriender's point.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-27-2017, 04:00 AM
Princhester Princhester is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So you think that her experience is relevant as 'qualifications', but that discussing what she actually did during the experience touted as qualifications is "just a bunch of non sequiturs?"
Firstly, one can be very experienced and consequently well qualified even if one made mistakes during the time one spent gathering that experience. Wise people understand that. Only inexperienced and/or blindly partisan people think that the fact that someone made mistakes during their career means they are not experienced. If someone says that, it's usually a sign that their quarterbacking knowledge was gained entirely from an armchair.

If you can't find find a few mistakes or changes of mind during someone's career, they probably either never did anything, or are a mindless blockhead incapable of learning.

Secondly, when I say HRC was experienced and one of your rebuttals is she "got appointed to a position by the Democratic establishment" you're just not listening. A guy who got a job as a plumber because their father owned the company, but who has thirty years of experience as a plumber, has thirty years of experience as a plumber. No matter how they got the job in the first place.

When someone discounts decades of experience because that experience has a few blemishes, that means they are looking for an excuse to do so. HRC's campaign should have avoided this subject for reasons I stated above, not because it was a point regarding which she had no rational rebuttal.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-27-2017, 05:10 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
Nope, you really didn't understand k9bfriender's point.
Hillary Clinton said half of Trump's supporters were deplorable and irredeemable by dint of being racist or xenophobic or et cetera. I know some Trump supporters who (a) I don't think are racist or xenophobic, but who (b) want the law enforced against illegal immigrants, and who (b) some would call racist or xenophobic or whatever. And if someone were to ask me whether Hillary Clinton meant one of them, I'd have to shrug and say "I honestly don't know; I can't tell what she has in mind. Really, she's no different than anyone else who says Like Half Of Those People Are Incorrigible And Worthless, But You're One Of The Good Ones -- leaving me to wonder, for any given one of 'em, which half that person would be categorized in."

I'm curious: next time a Dem runs for President, do you recommend following Clinton's example by vaguely saying half the folks supporting the GOP candidate are deplorable and irredeemable by dint of being racist or xenophobic -- leaving guys like me to again wonder, wait, are you insulting *this* individual but not *that* one?

Do you think that'd be a smart move?
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04-27-2017, 07:55 PM
Princhester Princhester is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Hillary Clinton said half of Trump's supporters were deplorable and irredeemable by dint of being racist or xenophobic or et cetera. I know some Trump supporters who (a) I don't think are racist or xenophobic...
All you need to do is stop there. If you go further, you are just looking for a way to have a fight.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-27-2017, 08:03 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
All you need to do is stop there. If you go further, you are just looking for a way to have a fight.
Uh-huh. I'd genuinely appreciate an answer to the questions at the end: would you recommend, to someone making a run at the presidency next time around, that it'd sure be a smart strategy to follow in her footsteps by saying that half the folks who support the other candidate are deplorable to the point of being irredeemable?

After all, you can breezily assure him or her, surely people will give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to any given person, unless they're looking for a fight. Would that be your advice?
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 04-27-2017, 08:29 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
I have read many comments sections for many news articles and I'll tell you, part of me thinks that the use of the term "deplorables" was charitable.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 04-27-2017, 08:50 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
I have read many comments sections for many news articles and I'll tell you, part of me thinks that the use of the term "deplorables" was charitable.
See, I thought this thread was about campaign tactics.

Like, if we're asking if she should've said that quote about just how deplorable the irredeemable are, I figured the question wasn't whether her remark was accurate, or whether it would've been more accurate to use even harsher language; the question is, what should she have said with an eye toward winning the election?

In the context of the campaign, was that a smart thing to say, or a dumb thing to say? In the context of getting elected, was there something that would've been better for her to say, then and there? Whoever runs to win in 2020 should say -- what?
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 04-27-2017, 09:42 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Didn't add anything for me, I was already scared about the people I saw adoring Il Douche. Zombie movies are less scary. But I was a given, and doesn't remotely affect the question of bringing on the undecided. But then I would have to understand why they are undecided, given the horrendous possible consequences of electing an ignorant lout to be the single most powerful man on the planet.

I confess I do not. But it certainly seems that many of those so described..."deplorable"...were quite pleased to bandy it about and flute it. (The soundtrack going through my head when I watched them was Randy Newman's scathing "Rednecks".)

But it was unlikely that they could be any more alienated from HRC anyway. So, then, the undecided and non-deplorable....they will compare HRC's vicious slur with the decorous and civil Mr. Trump, and she suffers by comparison? Really?
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 04-27-2017, 10:13 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
But it was unlikely that they could be any more alienated from HRC anyway. So, then, the undecided and non-deplorable....they will compare HRC's vicious slur with the decorous and civil Mr. Trump, and she suffers by comparison? Really?
Again, to the extent that Trump said indecorous and uncivil stuff about people who haven't legally immigrated here, and that Clinton said indecorous and uncivil things about millions of our citizens -- well, then, given that there really were undecided voters, which one of those slurs would come out ahead, in that comparison?

Picture an undecided voter who (a) doesn't actually know any of the people Trump is insulting, and who (b) does know the folks Clinton is insulting: they're friends, they're family, they're co-workers, they're drinking buddies, et cetera. Does he sympathize with the people Trump is insulting? Does he sympathize with the people Clinton is insulting? If 'yes' to both, who does he sympathize with more?

(Also, why even make it a question? Like, since she said it, we can ask whether her remark suffers by comparison with his -- and you can ask that with derision, but you can ask it, is the thing. If she hadn't said that millions of Americans are deplorable and irredeemable, then -- well, we wouldn't ask; we couldn't, really. So, was it a smart move for her to make that comparison possible, making it possible for her to suffer by comparison? Did she gain anything by introducing that risk?)

Last edited by The Other Waldo Pepper; 04-27-2017 at 10:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 04-27-2017, 10:30 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Well, you are phrasing the question askew, as though there were only one incident for each. Like comparing a fart to Vesuvius. Also elides the person who is not deplorable and doesn't want to be associated with such as these.

Might be best for all those on the Hillary side of this to simply throw up our hands and confess that, yes, yes, its all our fault that Trump currently infects the Oval Orifice, and beseech forgiveness from....who?

But still, one could hardly do better for civility and decorum than Barrack, and it sure didn't seem to help him all that much.

Last edited by elucidator; 04-27-2017 at 10:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 04-27-2017, 10:45 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Well, you are phrasing the question askew, as though there were only one incident for each. Like comparing a fart to Vesuvius. Also elides the person who is not deplorable and doesn't want to be associated with such as these.

Might be best for all those on the Hillary side of this to simply throw up our hands and confess that, yes, yes, its all our fault that Trump currently infects of Oval Orifice, and beseech forgiveness from....who?
I don't much care about who should beseech forgiveness from whom. What interests me, and the only reason I can see for asking whether her remark was a smart move, is that I'd sure like the word to go out not to do that the next time around, if the answer is "oh, man, that was a dumb move and it shouldn't be repeated."

If you disagree -- if you think it's a smart move that should be repeated, and one that should maybe get a double dose of vitriol next time -- then I genuinely want to hear that argument. But if you figure it was a dumb move, such that the next candidate should be ready with a different answer when inevitably asked about "deplorables" come 2020, then I guess I kind of want to hear that instead.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 04-28-2017, 12:27 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Well, OK, where are we gonna get the candidate that makes no mistakes at all, ever? Perhaps we look for people who stroll across the lake?

And what if she's right? Some of the groups that supported Trump are just downright deplorable, no two ways about it. We are bound by law and the Constitution to respect their right to their opinions and their vote, but does that mean we are bound to approve? Or that we are bound to silence our disapproval? Chickenshit way to stand for something, don't you think?
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 04-28-2017, 12:50 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
If some specific individual or some identifiable group (like the KKK) comes out in support of Trump, there should be no problem identifying them as "deplorable". Characterizing some ill-defined, very large group of Americans (e.g., "half" of Trump supporters) as deplorable is a bad tactic. This is not brain surgery (if we can still say that these days).
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 04-28-2017, 06:00 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Well, OK, where are we gonna get the candidate that makes no mistakes at all, ever? Perhaps we look for people who stroll across the lake?
Well, look, while I'd still mention it if she made some unforced error during a debate or whatever, I'd presumably throw in a "nobody's perfect" when shruggingly figuring that it's the sort of mistake that people make under pressure and off-the-cuff.

But this seems to have been done with intent; seems it was planned and scripted, as part of a scripted plan the next candidate (a) might try next time, and (b) can devise a stance on now, knowing that the question will presumably come up in 2020 when someone asks "we heard what she said about deplorables; what do you say?"

Quote:
And what if she's right? Some of the groups that supported Trump are just downright deplorable, no two ways about it. We are bound by law and the Constitution to respect their right to their opinions and their vote, but does that mean we are bound to approve? Or that we are bound to silence our disapproval? Chickenshit way to stand for something, don't you think?
Uh, yeah, I guess. But she walked it back the next day, right? And then she lost.

If I cared about the 'chickenshit' label, I'd stress the "walked it back the next day" bit; but I care more about the second part, is all. Like, what if she could've won without saying that then -- and without walking it back the next day -- and then (a) would've had the power to do stuff during the ensuing presidency, and (b) could've railed against those 'deplorables' during every day of said presidency?

Last edited by The Other Waldo Pepper; 04-28-2017 at 06:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 04-28-2017, 07:32 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
This is not brain surgery (if we can still say that these days).
Well, we can say It's Not Rocket Surgery!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.