Could we go with about half being roughly the 45% who would prefer a traitorous Confederate over a well-spoken American?
Aw, Snowflake either purged his ignore list or just lied about it. Good news, it’s my weekend. Bad news, it seems Texas is in for a craptacular time, so it feels bad to shit on you when Mother Nature is already doing so. Welcome, and have a cookie. Be careful though, they turn frogs gay.
Your argument seems to be that by insulting Trump voters, we drive them deeper into Trump territory, guaranteeing people like him will do better in future elections.
I don’t agree with that.
Trump was the most hostile candidate to minorities in decades. His desire to get rid of all the illegal latino immigrants, to ban muslim immigration, to let the police crack down on the ghettos (code for black and poor), his treatment of women as sex objects, etc were the opposite of what was recommended after the 2012 loss.
And the GOP still won the presidential election. Trump broke every rule and still won, and a lot of people took it for granted that Hillary would win. I think it is safe to say that as of 2017, people really don’t understand political science. You can sit there and say ‘insulting voters means you lose’ but you are about as credible as people like me were when we were saying ‘Hillary Clinton is almost guaranteed to win in 2016’. We don’t know what motivates voters.
Tribalism is an intrinsic aspect of being human, and people do the same in other countries and cultures. However, again, the democratic party is the party of inclusiveness and protection of marginalized groups, and I wouldn’t want the people who are behind mistreatment of marginalized groups to find a comfy home in the democratic party.
Basically, the 30-50% of Trump voters (or 15-25% of actual voters, 10-15% of all potential voters, whatever you prefer) we are insulting will never be democrats. And that is fine, I don’t want them in the party. They’d tear the coalition apart. The democratic coalition right now is marginalized groups (religious, cultural and sexual minorities), single women and liberals. Inviting people who enjoy mistreating all 3 into the party would just muck things up.
Nothing wrong with calling out bad behavior. Again, if 80% of democrats either said they’d prefer or weren’t sure if they’d prefer Maduro or Stalin over president Trump then I wouldn’t get upset if you insulted us.
As I mentioned earlier, I misread your post and thought you were calling people upset about the GOP support for the confederacy snowflakes.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20434563&postcount=26
I missed that one. My apologies. Though I’ll never pass up an opportunity to use fukfuk.
Trump is scum. Period.
Then please clarify your position for me.
No I have not. That would be blasphemy. I am a High Priest of Dudeism. The Dude does not abide going out of ones way to do things.
I feel that it’s possible to do the right thing while also avoiding insulting the supporters of your opponent. I’m not arguing that anyone should act as dirty as Trump did. I’m arguing that candidates should act like Obama did.
Fair enough. I find it so rare that an opponent in this forum accurately summarizes my actual argument that I find myself at a loss of how to proceed. But, yes, this is my basic argument.
This is also a fair critique. I don’t think I’m wrong, but you’re correct that I was initially convinced that Trump was a joke, and frankly I still am. So: true. I can’t say I was so far-sighted as to call this one.
Once again, fair point. But perhaps it’s possible to simply avoid antagonizing these people to come out and vote AGAINST your candidate? Treat them with contempt and they might come out; treat them as a loyal opposition (even if they are not) and avoid or at least lessen the emnity.
I’d be a bit more certain of this if I thought a majority of these folks know who Jefferson Davis was. A litany of “Jaywalking” segments from the former “Tonight Show” host leaves me convinced that most wouldn’t.
Now, someone above said, “Then they are deplorably ignorant.”
THAT is the kind of gratuitous insult that isn’t justified (politically) and doesn’t help.
They most likely drink Coors and hate fried chicken and pecan pie. They prefer nervous yap dogs to big, sloppy, stupid hounds. Rather shoot a deer than go fishing. Deplorable is entirely apt.
But are they insulted? Really? Seems to me they dived in and wallowed in it, scooping up handfuls of it and rubbing it into their hair. And we won’t have time to fool around tip-toeing around their delicate sensibilities, we have to mount a coalition of the like-minded, depending on intricate and improvised compromises. It’ll be tough enough getting everybody singing from the same page, or anything even close.
The deplorables will have to redeem themselves, its is beyond mortal power. We’ll have enough on our plate keeping PETA from getting into a knife-fight with the vegans.
yay verily.
The Dude abides.
Amen.
And yet, SOME of them are so infuriating, so unwilling to listen to or consider anything, it’s almost impossible NOT to get abusive.
Can we just let them go at it and watch from the sidelines? 
Is it the word “deplorable” that you feel was the insult?
If she had just said, “About half of Trump’s supporters are racists, homophobes, islamophobes, and bigots. Unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up.He’s given voice to websites that used to have 11,000 viewers now have 11 million. He tweets…” would that have been as insulting?
In other words, exactly the same thing, but without the “basket of deplorables” comment.
I have the feeling that that is the case, as the “basket of deplorables” was what they kept hitting her with, not the accusation of racism and bigotry.
With that phrase, people chose to misinterpret what she said as, “if you are a trump supporter, you are irredeemably deplorable.” and feel insulted by it. When the actual statement was, “if you are a racist, you may be irredeemably deplorable”, which, while insulting, is only insulting towards racists, and being insulting towards racists should not disqualify you from office.
If there was any political miscalculation in her statements at all, it was that she underestimated people who are either a bigot, are supportive of bigots, or are willing to be considered a bigot in order to achieve an appropriate level of outrage.
So, was she wrong to call out the bigots in trump’s camp, or was she wrong to insult the bigots in trump’s camp?
Personally, I take it as people were wrong to deliberately misinterpret her word in order to generate outrage, but you can’t control how people will choose to misinterpret what you say.
No one ever leaves. They just say that as if people actually care. Did a single Hollywood celebrity leave? No.
If they hate fried chicken then they are truly deplorable. :eek:
How you tell a leftie from a rightie ?
Just ask what they’ll do if the other party wins.
Leftie says they’ll leave the country. Rightie says they’ll take up arms.
And you said “no” like it would be a bad thing :rolleyes:
I disagree on these points. John McCain and Mitt Romney both condemned bigotry, racism, and homophobia. That probably disappointed some bigots, racists, and homophobes.
It wasn’t a big issue because there was nobody in those campaigns who opposed them on this issue. Barack Obama certainly wasn’t in favor of bigotry, racism, or homophobia. So with both sides in general agreement it was a non-issue.
But Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump. Let’s be generous here and say that Trump is tolerant of bigotry, racism, and homophobia. So unlike the last few elections, we had two sides on this issue; one side that condemned bigotry, racism, or homophobia and one side that didn’t. That’s what made the issue divisive.
As for driving bigots, racists, and homophobes further towards Trump, so what? It was a non-factor. Once he decided that was willing to accept bigotry, racism, and homophobia, he had won the deplorable vote. He was offering these people more than any president had offered them in decades. They were committed to him.
The only way Clinton could have competed with Trump for those voters was to race him to the bottom and offer them more. “Trump’s only willing to give you guys moral support. I’ll enact a program that provides you with free laundry service for your uniforms and makes swastikas tax deductible.”
Instead Clinton wrote off the deplorable vote and went after the anti-deplorable vote. She figured if Trump was getting the Neo-Nazi and Klan vote, she’d go after the voters who were bothered by Trump’s support of the Neo-Nazis and the Klan. Her condemnation may have driven the deplorables further towards Trump but they were already there to start with. Driving them further didn’t really change anything. They could only vote for Trump once and they were already doing that.
That’s because a lefty can look out on the world, and see quite a number of countries that are pretty nice for them. They are closer to their ideal of a country than the US is.
We still don’t really want to leave, as that’s a lot of work, and it is not like there is a guarantee that the country of our choice will take us.
A rightie looks out at the world, and sees no examples of countries that are the way they want them to be, and so they do their damndest to force this country into their ideal, not caring that there is actually a reason why there are no countries that are the way they want.
It is odd that for the first time in over a generation, the question of whether or not racism is acceptable is actually a question, and not a foregone conclusion.
It is very sad as to what the answer turned out to be.
In another thread, a poster is talking about a friend who he believes has fallen for a mail order bride type scam. There is quite a bit of caution advised, as people are aware that those who have fallen for scams are the last ones to admit that they have fallen for a scam, and will often times become quite defensive, even to the point of becoming hostile with those trying to point out the scam.
This is similar to the racism issue. I had people claim that Clinton called them, personally, deplorable. I would ask them if they were a racist or a bigot or and islamophobe or a homophobe, and they’d say no, of course not, but clinton called all trump supporters deplorables.
Trying to point out that she did not in fact say that was pointless, their minds were made up, and no amount of actual fact or logic would sway them, they felt insulted, and that was all that mattered.
On at least three occasions, the exact same quote, in the exact same sneering voice, “No, she said that *I’m *deplorable.”
I really don’t see how it really matters at all what clinton said. The right simply made stuff up about what she said, they lied about what she said. She could have been mute throughout the entire campaign, and people would still be complaining about what fox or breitbart or the blaze said she said.
How is that relevant?
Imagine folks who aren’t racists. Imagine that Democrats call 'em racists anyway. Imagine a Democrat then says something about racists being deplorable; and then, repeat for effect with ‘xenophobia’ and ‘bigotry’ or whatever and et cetera.
Now, I figure that such folks would say “no, of course not” if asked whether they’re racists. And I also figure that, upon hearing the “deplorable” comment, such folks would think, “hang on: is this is a situation where somebody who’s wrong about me on one count is wrong about me on two counts?”