Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-14-2017, 02:04 AM
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
....No one likes being called a sexist. No one likes being called a racist....
Fair enough, most people would not like being called either,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
....White men are routinely called both....
No, no they aren't. As a 54 year old white man I can say I've never been called either for a very simple reason - I don't make sexist or racist statements or act in ways that could be considered sexist or racist. The vast majority of white men I know would likely be able to truthfully say the same.

I would suggest anyone who finds themselves being routinely called either needs to reexamine what they are saying and how they are behaving.
  #52  
Old 07-14-2017, 06:37 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
No, no they aren't. As a 54 year old white man I can say I've never been called either for a very simple reason - I don't make sexist or racist statements or act in ways that could be considered sexist or racist. The vast majority of white men I know would likely be able to truthfully say the same.

I would suggest anyone who finds themselves being routinely called either needs to reexamine what they are saying and how they are behaving.
But would you suggest, to people struggling to win a key election, that folks put that 'reexamine what you say and how you behave' message out there?

"Fair enough, most people would not like being called either," you grant. Fair enough, says I; so what's the primary goal, here?
  #53  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:46 PM
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But would you suggest, to people struggling to win a key election, that folks put that 'reexamine what you say and how you behave' message out there?

"Fair enough, most people would not like being called either," you grant. Fair enough, says I; so what's the primary goal, here?
The primary goal would be to win but I don't think that means it is necessary to ignore racist/sexist attitudes or comments.

If I understand your point correctly - yes, it is unlikely to be well received when pointing out to people that accusations of racism or sexism may have some basis in what they do or say. The current election shows there are a substantial number of people who weren't bothered by sexist or racist comments coming from the person they voted for. I still don't think it makes it okay to ignore it. It could be argued HRC did a crap job pointing this out. The "deplorables" comment certainly was ill advised. Doesn't mean someone can't address it in a way that is more well received.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 07-14-2017 at 03:47 PM.
  #54  
Old 07-14-2017, 04:21 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm not aware of ever being demonized by any significant portion of the left, or any prominent democratic politician.
Do you at least understand how lots of Republicans may have felt demonized by Clinton's "deplorables" comment?

Note: if your response is going to be something along the lines of 'if they're not actually racists and bigots, this shouldn't have bothered them', I'd encourage you to consider how that same logic might apply to Mitt Romney's 47% comment.
  #55  
Old 07-15-2017, 10:34 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
Despite being absolutely true.
The left is beginning to discover something: Telling the truth can incur consequences.
  #56  
Old 07-15-2017, 11:12 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The left is beginning to discover something: Telling the truth can incur consequences.
Truism of the day.
  #57  
Old 07-16-2017, 05:00 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you at least understand how lots of Republicans may have felt demonized by Clinton's "deplorables" comment?
These are the same Republicans who have no problem laughing at other peoples' "snowflake tears", "safe spaces" and "triggering"? Yeah, I get why they feel demonized.
  #58  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:04 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
These are the same Republicans who have no problem laughing at other peoples' "snowflake tears", "safe spaces" and "triggering"? Yeah, I get why they feel demonized.
Uh, yeah: Republicans presumably lose the votes of people they sneeringly laugh at as safe-space snowflakes -- and Dems can go tit-for-tat, explaining how they believe that deplorables are irredeemable: presumably losing their votes in turn.

Is that a trade to be desired? Or should Democrats live by the words my candidate spoke: When They Go Low, We Go High, all that stuff?
  #59  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:41 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Or should Democrats live by the words my candidate spoke: When They Go Low, We Go High, all that stuff?
Only if they want to console themselves with their ethical purity as they lose again.
  #60  
Old 07-17-2017, 06:53 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Only if they want to console themselves with their ethical purity as they lose again.
But they didn't go with ethical purity. Hillary Clinton heard American citizens saying mean things about people who aren't American citizens, and decided the best move was to call those voters deplorable and irredeemable -- and, the very next day, she announced that she regretted her remarks.

At the debate, one of the moderators naturally asked a question about that, and she replied by emphatically stressing that her argument isn't with Trump's supporters, but with him. Because of course she did; you can't put a statement like that out there and then stand by it, that's just crazy talk.

She clearly had to back down, because 'weak and dishonest' was actually a less bad look than standing by that description -- but walking it back, like doubling down, isn't as good as simply not saying it in the first place.

Whoever the Dems put up in 2020 will presumably get asked about that: do you think "tens of millions of Americans" should get written off as deplorable and irredeemable? And I figure the candidate can say yes, and stand by it; or yes, but later disavow it; or no, the ethical-purity, they-go-low-we-go-high answer. Which do you recommend?
  #61  
Old 07-17-2017, 08:22 AM
Plumpudding Plumpudding is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
[snip]Indeed, the Left has spent much effort demonising whites, especially white males. No one likes being called a sexist. No one likes being called a racist. White men are routinely called both.
I have been called sexist. When it was pointed out to me, It dawned on me how and why it could be taken that way and apologized. A little introspection goes a long way.

Point is, if you don't want to be called sexist or racist, don't be sexist and racist and stop defending sexism and racism. If you are being called sexist and racist on a regular basis, there's your clue to try to figure out why you're being called sexist and racist (as in, figure out what about your behaviors and what's behind those behaviors that triggers such responses), stop doing it and apologize. Also, stop whining about it. White, straight men are not being demonized by the left.
  #62  
Old 07-17-2017, 09:28 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 72,736
If a politician says that racists, sexists, and other bigots are deplorable, and you take offense at that, then you're describing yourself as a racist, sexist, or other bigot. That's not Clinton's fault; that's yours.

I submit that almost nobody was offended by Clinton's actual remark. Rather, there were a whole lot of people who were offended by the Republicans' mischaracterization of Clinton's remark. Which means that it was the Republicans who were doing the actual offending.
  #63  
Old 07-17-2017, 09:28 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Indeed, the Left has spent much effort demonising whites, especially white males. No one likes being called a sexist. No one likes being called a racist. White men are routinely called both.
To the extent it's true, then it isn't demonization, but an attempt to create a more decent society, one piece at a time. Can it be true? Is there ever a more appropriate response than taking offense and saying things like "Trump doesn't apologize for America!" ?

Quote:
The Left seem to ignore sexism against men. The Left seem to ignore - and even encourage - racism against whites.
Why the use of capitalization? Is that a way to enjoy denouncing an imagined straw monolith rather than explore the subject?

Yes, sometimes accusations are made falsely or inappropriately, based on inadequate knowledge. But sometimes responses are, too. We get nowhere by automatically imputing evil intent to someone who's trying to engage us. Yes, sometimes you are in the wrong, and recognizing it and admitting it and fixing it is simply part of adulting.
  #64  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:51 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If a politician says that racists, sexists, and other bigots are deplorable, and you take offense at that, then you're describing yourself as a racist, sexist, or other bigot. That's not Clinton's fault; that's yours.
Fair enough, but: from the sound of that, you wouldn't have followed her example. You presumably wouldn't -- when asked about that remark at the debate -- have said your argument isn't with Trump's supporters; because yours is. You presumably wouldn't have expressed public regret for your remark a day later, either.

And, well, I can respect that. And if someone else were to say they wouldn't have made that comment in the first place -- and so wouldn't have needed to answer a question about irredeemable deplorables at the debate, and wouldn't have had any public regrets about a remark they never made -- well, I can get behind that, too.

But she said it -- and then made a show of regretting it, and then made a point of saying her argument isn't with those people. And who does that help?
  #65  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:57 AM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If a politician says that racists, sexists, and other bigots are deplorable, and you take offense at that, then you're describing yourself as a racist, sexist, or other bigot. That's not Clinton's fault; that's yours.
I don't think so. People can sense a code wording (a bit too blatant to be called dog-whistling) to know that something is being used to refer to them.

A notably pro-life politician might say, "Those who kill innocent human life are worse than Hitler" and pro-abortion folks might take offense. Even though pro-abortion folks would not consider themselves to be killing "innocent human life," they know perfectly well that the pro-life politician is referring to them with that sort of language.
  #66  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:01 AM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,240
Edit: It is a cousin of the poisoning-the-well fallacy.
  #67  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:26 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 9,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
If the Democrats keep to that they'll lose in 2020. In 2016 the Democrats did not reach out to the people who voted for Trump. Indeed, the Left has spent much effort demonising whites, especially white males. No one likes being called a sexist. No one likes being called a racist. White men are routinely called both. The Left seem to ignore sexism against men. The Left seem to ignore - and even encourage - racism against whites. Trump reached out to them and duly won.
Yeah, I ignore it so much I don't even think it's happening. I don't ever recall being called a racist or sexist by any actual Democratic candidate or office holder.

But then again, although I'm a white male, I guess I'm not a snowflake.
  #68  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:43 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Only if they want to console themselves with their ethical purity as they lose again.
You guys went low and lost anyways.
  #69  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:46 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,504
I don't really think you want to get into a comparison.
  #70  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:46 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
These are the same Republicans who have no problem laughing at other peoples' "snowflake tears", "safe spaces" and "triggering"? Yeah, I get why they feel demonized.
I rather doubt that they're "the same Republicans". Do you have a cite to support that claim?

Trump got something like 63 million votes, can you understand that some of those people were bothered by Clinton's deplorable comment and it's not necessarily the same people talking online about "snowflake tears"?
  #71  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:49 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If a politician says that racists, sexists, and other bigots are deplorable, and you take offense at that, then you're describing yourself as a racist, sexist, or other bigot. That's not Clinton's fault; that's yours.

I submit that almost nobody was offended by Clinton's actual remark. Rather, there were a whole lot of people who were offended by the Republicans' mischaracterization of Clinton's remark. Which means that it was the Republicans who were doing the actual offending.
LOL. That's some pretty damn twisted "logic" you've got going on there.
  #72  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:58 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Trump got something like 63 million votes, can you understand that some of those people were bothered by Clinton's deplorable comment and it's not necessarily the same people talking online about "snowflake tears"?
I can understand that many, many of them already hated her and already thought she was a criminal ("Lock her up!", went Trump's chant, speaking of going low), and were absolutely gleeful at finally having some sort of evidence of the low character they already just knew she had. Isn't that about right?
  #73  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:02 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 9,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post

Trump got something like 63 million votes, can you understand that some of those people were bothered by Clinton's deplorable comment and it's not necessarily the same people talking online about "snowflake tears"?
No, I cannot understand that.

Trump is fucking deplorable, and so are the people who voted for him. It's not really subject to debate.

More to the point, no one who was going to vote for Clinton decided not to because she "insulted" people who were supporting Trump. Only people who supported Trump in the first place gave a rat's ass about that comment.
  #74  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:12 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
No, I cannot understand that.

Trump is fucking deplorable, and so are the people who voted for him. It's not really subject to debate.

More to the point, no one who was going to vote for Clinton decided not to because she "insulted" people who were supporting Trump. Only people who supported Trump in the first place gave a rat's ass about that comment.
Your post wasn't a response to my question at all, but if all you want to do is spew venom and vitriol, maybe that's for the best.
  #75  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:14 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I can understand that many, many of them already hated her and already thought she was a criminal ("Lock her up!", went Trump's chant, speaking of going low), and were absolutely gleeful at finally having some sort of evidence of the low character they already just knew she had. Isn't that about right?
I have no idea how many of them knew before her deplorable comment that she is a person of low moral character. Just curious, how many Trump voters do you think chanted "lock her up" at one point or another? 200,00? 500,000? 1 million? 2 million? 3?
  #76  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:16 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 9,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your post wasn't a response to my question at all, but if all you want to do is spew venom and vitriol, maybe that's for the best.
you asked:
Quote:
...can you understand that some of those people were bothered by Clinton's deplorable comment...
And I answered. I can't understand it. Nor do I believe it. My view is that her comment had exactly zero effect on the election. I guess we'll never know for sure.
  #77  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:20 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I have no idea how many of them knew before her deplorable comment that she is a person of low moral character.
I'm pretty sure you get the point but have chosen to evade it.

Quote:
Just curious, how many Trump voters do you think chanted "lock her up" at one point or another? 200,00? 500,000? 1 million? 2 million? 3?
Probably a lot of overlap with the ones who cheered him mocking the disabled reporter, cheered him promising to keep Muslims from entering the country, cheered him tell about building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, cheered him promising to "fix" the government (and that only he could do it), cheered him claiming he was going to destroy ISIS because he knew how better than the generals, cheering him say his health care plan would cover everybody and cost less ... need I go on? Those are the people, and the candidate, you were proud to have on your side? The hateful and the gullible and their most proficient manipulator? That all really happened, and now you own it, by your own choice.

Tell us how you "knew" about Hillary's character being so much worse it couldn't be measured on the same scale. Then tell us what "deplorable" means to you.
  #78  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:29 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
... My view is that her comment had exactly zero effect on the election. I guess we'll never know for sure.
You're right, you answered that you couldn't understand. My apologies for missing that. This latter part of your post appears to be a complete non-sequitur though. I haven't claimed (at least today) that her comment flipped a bunch of votes, just that the subset of people mocking "snowflake tears" and the subset of people bothered by her deplorable comment aren't necessarily the same people. My post was a response to Merneith's claim that "These are the same Republicans ...". Is your worldview really so narrow that you can't see that there's a fair bit of variety among Republicans?
  #79  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:43 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 9,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Is your worldview really so narrow that you can't see that there's a fair bit of variety among Republicans?
Yes, I get that. Some Republicans refused to vote for Trump. Good for them. Most, however, apparently did.
  #80  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:58 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Probably a lot of overlap with the ones who cheered him mocking the disabled reporter, cheered him promising to keep Muslims from entering the country, cheered him tell about building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, cheered him promising to "fix" the government (and that only he could do it), cheered him claiming he was going to destroy ISIS because he knew how better than the generals, cheering him say his health care plan would cover everybody and cost less ... need I go on?
If you going on means that you eventually give me an answer, with an actual number, then yes, please do. Let's grant, for the sake of argument that you are correct and there is a lot of overlap in the various groups you listed above, can you give me your best estimate on how many Trump voters chanted "lock her up" now?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Those are the people, and the candidate, you were proud to have on your side?
I don't believe I've ever claimed to be "proud to have [all Trump voters] on my side" and I suspect you're not particularly proud of all the words and actions of every single Clinton voter either. Are you?



Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Tell us how you "knew" about Hillary's character being so much worse it couldn't be measured on the same scale.
Huh? I don't know what you're talking about here. What scale? When did I claim I "knew" about Hillary's character?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Then tell us what "deplorable" means to you.
"Deplorables" = plural of deplorable; deserving strong condemnation / shockingly bad in quality
  #81  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:06 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,598
I find it very hard to believe that anyone who complained about the 'deplorables' line was actually planning to vote for Hillary anyway. It always comes off as sour grapes from people who *are* deplorables, attempting to spread a false claim that this caused millions to change their votes.

"Well of course I'm a racist and a Republican and would never have voted for Lying Hitlery, but that comment was just too much and will cost the Democrats future elections by insulting people like me!"

I'm a white male, I'm not a Republican, I'm not a deplorable. Nothing in that statement insulted me or made me think ill of Hillary Clinton.

But Humans like to try that argument a lot. People who were never going to agree with you or treat you fairly will grasp at your anger or some comment you make to try to guilt and shame you into submission and retroactively justify their position.

Just look at the comments made by people who hate blacks, about actions taken by black people justifying their hatred of black people. Or really, any other group. "I can't support that group because they're not being polite" is really a bullshit way of blowing off what you weren't going to support or listen to anyway.
  #82  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:10 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But they didn't go with ethical purity. Hillary Clinton heard American citizens saying mean things about people who aren't American citizens, and decided the best move was to call those voters deplorable and irredeemable -- and, the very next day, she announced that she regretted her remarks.

At the debate, one of the moderators naturally asked a question about that, and she replied by emphatically stressing that her argument isn't with Trump's supporters, but with him. Because of course she did; you can't put a statement like that out there and then stand by it, that's just crazy talk.

She clearly had to back down, because 'weak and dishonest' was actually a less bad look than standing by that description -- but walking it back, like doubling down, isn't as good as simply not saying it in the first place.

Whoever the Dems put up in 2020 will presumably get asked about that: do you think "tens of millions of Americans" should get written off as deplorable and irredeemable? And I figure the candidate can say yes, and stand by it; or yes, but later disavow it; or no, the ethical-purity, they-go-low-we-go-high answer. Which do you recommend?
Tactical errors don't invalidate the underlying philosophy. To provide a corollary to the old and tired proverb (I'm good at trotting those out ), you can't fight with pigs without getting dirty.

To your hypothetical, the obvious campaigning answer is No. The reality is different. The deplorables are out there, and they are overwhelmingly Trumpists.
  #83  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:13 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
I find it very hard to believe that anyone who complained about the 'deplorables' line was actually planning to vote for Hillary anyway.
Well, look, I not only planned to vote for Hillary, but did so. And so my hands are clean, hey nonny nonny; but I'll hereby complain about that line anyway.
  #84  
Old 07-17-2017, 02:34 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,088
Quartz wrote: " No one likes being called a racist...." Some actual racists do, but that sort is few and far between.

Someone once called me a racist, but I convinced them that I just think I'm better than everybody.
  #85  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:18 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,367
Personally, that comment was about the only point in the campaign where I actually liked Clinton. She was stating a truth that many chose to pussyfoot around, and was doing so with an appropriately dignified, yet authentically outraged, affect. I mean, I'm not a swing voter, so YMMV.

I agree that the comment is much more a target for RO from people who weren't voting for Clinton anyway than a substantive explanation for the election result.
  #86  
Old 07-18-2017, 06:46 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Personally, that comment was about the only point in the campaign where I actually liked Clinton. She was stating a truth that many chose to pussyfoot around, and was doing so with an appropriately dignified, yet authentically outraged, affect. I mean, I'm not a swing voter, so YMMV.
But, again: how did you feel the next day, when she publicly expressed regret for that comment? How did you feel when, at the debate, she got asked about that comment and backpedaled away from it -- taking pains to spell out that, within hours, she said that she was sorry about what she's said, because her argument is not with Trump's supporters, but with him?

Why wouldn't her argument be with them, if she'd been right about them? Why should she be at all sorry for dignifiedly telling a truth that many pussyfoot around, when she could've stood by it instead of, er, pussyfooting around? What happened to that authentic outrage when she was given a platform to elaborate on it?

Again, the real question for me -- per the thread's title -- is, what should the party's candidate should say about this in 2020? Would you recommend first saying that the deplorables are irredeemable; and then expressing regret for saying that; and then making clear you have no argument with them, but only with the guy they support? Or would you recommend not doing that in the first place? Or would you recommend doing it, and then unflinchingly riding that line whenever asked?
  #87  
Old 07-18-2017, 07:47 AM
wolfman wolfman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,307
Hillary's problem wasn't that comment. Her problem is the person who she is, and the number of non-partisans and independents who swore they would never,ever vote for her. The partisan fanaticism is every bit as strong with the Dems who largely seems completely blinded to any possibility except seeing the entire country as 100% with "us" or 100% against "us". And there seems to be little hope for much improvement in the short term because they are committed to following up "See how much of a fuck up Trump is" with "Told you so, you should have voted for Hillary" rather than "okay, we fucked up too by putting Hillary on the ballot, we will commit to doing better in 2020 and beyond"
  #88  
Old 07-18-2017, 09:05 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,367
Waldo: the next day, I thought "Ah, there's the old familiar Hillary, the one who will say anything to get elected, yet still isn't very good at politics". I think that covers all the questions in your first two paragraphs.

To the last paragraph, you need to draw a distinction between the hardcore bigots and Nazi sympathizers who constituted Trump's core of early supporters, and mainstream Republicans, who may not have been primarily motivated by xenophobia and hatred, but were OK with electing a guy who hangs out with Steve Bannon if there were tax cuts in it for them.

Then you make the case that the second group of people is somehow not deplorable. If I could come up with a snappy way to express that distinction off the top of my head, I'd be doing that for a living instead of blathering on the internet. But that's the basic idea.

Also, you acknowledge that the pro-globalization economic policies of Clinton and Obama may have been good for "the economy" in some abstract sense, but also produced massive inequality and left a lot of people behind. You reassure them that the new Democratic Party is sensitive to their needs. You leave out the part about how, no matter how bad Clinton would have been, only an absolute fucking moron could have fallen for Trump's racist snake oil.
  #89  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:24 AM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,088
"When They Go Low, We Go High" works great as a slogan, but in the real world it's showing up for a gunfight not even with a knife but a peashooter.
  #90  
Old 07-18-2017, 11:51 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,089
I just finished reading The Sopranos State, on the corruption in New Jersey. I wonder if Corey Booker can withstand the close examination of a national race.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #91  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:56 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
I just finished reading The Sopranos State, on the corruption in New Jersey. I wonder if Corey Booker can withstand the close examination of a national race.
If Obama could get elected in Illinois, then New Jersey shouldn't be an issue.
  #92  
Old 07-19-2017, 11:09 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,367
A depressing/exciting factoid: We are now at a point approximately equidistant in time between the first debates of the 2016 election and the first debates of the 2020 election.
  #93  
Old 07-19-2017, 12:38 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,504
More in the Name-Mentioning business: Sen. Harris has impressed many of Hillary's key supporters.
Quote:
On July 15, Page Six reported that Sen. Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, met with top Clinton donors in the Hamptons. Many figures in Clinton’s inner circle attended, including Clinton’s 2008 Campaign National Finance co-Chair Michael Kempner, donors Dennis Mehiel and Steven Gambrel, and Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman. Harris also attended a separate luncheon hosted by one of Clinton’s top lobbyist bundlers, Liz Robbins.

Harris’ meetings with Clinton’s donors signal that they are rallying behind her as the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Harris has emerged as a leading figure in the Trump Resistance; Politico reported that the hearings regarding Trump’s connections to Russia have enabled the Democratic Party to frame her as Trump’s most aggressive critic.
  #94  
Old 07-19-2017, 04:40 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Ah, I get it now. You're angling to be her campaign manager, aren't you?
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 03:46 PM.

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.

 
Copyright © 2017