I was very happy when they fact-checked that Obama did not personally go into the desert, plant a flag in the ground, and declare the existence of the Islamic State, but I was sorely disappointed when they failed to subsequently point out that Trump was also wrong on a related matter: ISIS doesn’t give out MVP awards so Clinton and Obama couldn’t possibly be considered for them. This was even more egregious on the part of Trump and I am a bit upset at the obvious pro-Trump bias of Politifact in this regard.
Otherwise they are of impeccable character, I have it on good authority.
I can endeavor to correct my citations regarding the bylaws of the group mentioned above and whether or not Hillary used a private server in lieu of a government email address if anyone wishes. Please ask. I have not posted here in many years and don’t know what the SDMB considers the right sources. For instance I would never pay attention to the NYT, but it seemed to pass muster. It’s a confusing year.
To electronically transmit classified information, State Department employees must use a specific closed system, not their usual @state.gov email addresses. Clinton has said she viewed classified information in hard copy in her office, and she used other secure channels when traveling. Some emails now made public actually show Clinton’s team discussing how they couldn’t email each other classified information over the private server and instead had to move the conversation to a more appropriate venue.
So State Department rules say you can’t email classified information, even to .gov email addresses. Instead, there’s a separate, non-email, system for handling classified information, which Hillary used. Some classified information was sent to her email address, but it was done without her knowledge and was improperly marked.
I’m not sure it’s valid to use the fact that a white supremacist supports Trump as evidence that Trump is bad. I’m sure there are plenty of awful people who support Hillary. We should judge the candidates by their actions, statements, and who they endorse, rather than the revere
True, but remember the not born yesterday Part? Every single time an issue like that popped in his campaign Trump and surrogates ignore it. And continue ignoring and not condemning supporters like that, no matter how guys like Joe Arpaio get in trouble with the law with things like racial profiling Trump still keeps them joined to his hip.
On racism? I don’t think it’s that “fine” – it’s just that racist statements can get politicians in a heap of trouble.
That he even had the instinct to ban a religion from entering the country is highly bigoted, IMO, and reflects very poorly on him.
Ethnicity should never enter the conversation – any conversation – about whether a judge is biased for or against a candidate. Further, by singling out Mexican ancestry, he’s directly implying that white (or non-Mexican) judges are not biased.
Trump said “I just don’t know anything about him” when asked about Duke. That’s not credible – he directly criticized him years before, and it’s not reasonable to believe that he hadn’t read about this criticism prior to being interviewed.
It’s my position that Trump lied about not knowing who Duke was, and what he stands for, and he likely did this because he wants the support of white supremacists and was worried that a strong disavowal would lose that support.
Is there something in particular you wish me to address in the context of this thread? I stopped reading at another silly recount of the Khan job.
If you want me to say racism doesn’t exist you’ll be waiting a while but if you have something specific I’ll be happy to address it.
Nothing much, no. Politifact’s ability to research is not what I find disingenuous about them. What they’re willing to call a “Pants on Fire” “lie” and what they aren’t is suspect, and therefore so is such an aggregation.
The hard line appears anew. Then I suppose we can agree to roundly condemn this group the Judge belongs to?
Not to me, though this is of no substance for my support of him so it might be getting off track with respect to the OP.
Oh, to be back at the Zimmerman trial when Latinos were white. Simpler times.
Trump was asked a complex question regarding David Duke and white supremecists “support.” It was not at all clear what Trump was supposed to be addressing from the question, which, in its entirety, was “I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be treason to your heritage. Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?” This isn’t an unfair question by any means but I’m pretty sure if someone dropped this on me my first response would be, “I’m sorry, what is it you want me to do?” It sounds like an infowars tirade. David Duke! KKK! ADL! GRAND WIZAZZZAARRD!!1 Tapper’s “clarification” after Trump said he didn’t know what he was referring to was, “OK. I mean, I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but…” Which is just about the worst paraphrase imaginable for the pile that came out of his mouth, that was actually a question about a question of another party had about what yet another party happened to say. It sounds like Trump misunderstood the question as if it were an accusation that Trump was somehow in cohoots with Duke when he responds, “I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.” To this, you say
It’s my position that he thought the question was about an association between him and David Duke and to that extent Trump simply said he didn’t know David Duke in this regard.
Of course that is one of the reasons we should not give the presidency to Trump, he is truly bound to seek petty revenge and hatred that overrides any sense he would get. Not gonna give him more power to do so.
Why of course, none of the examples pointed out qualify for you, as usual for many Trump supporters.
It surprises you that people don’t think Trump is a racist, or that when they support Trump they do so without racism, or is everyone just automatically a racist or what are you even fucking saying, dude? Just say it, please. Don’t drop a hit piece from HuffPo and pretend like you have no obligation in the conversation. (Unless you wrote the article. Did you write the article?)
Wow. This kind of reaction probably goes part of the way towards explaining things like the Holocaust – undoubtedly many Germans were indifferent to the possibility of banning or expelling Jews from Germany, since they weren’t Jewish.
All that’s required for evil to triumph is the indifference of decent people.
I don’t find that credible at all, especially in light of the weakness of his later disavowals.
What is that supposed to mean if not a “killing the messenger” fallacy from your part?
The problem remains, racists and bigots are indeed getting a lot of oxygen thanks to ignoring the sizeable number of racists that are in the Republican tent.
I already do know that many are not racists, unfortunately they are however **very **tolerant of racists like Trump.
It is a form of reprehensible behavior IMHO and even Mitt Romney did notice:
I’m sorry that Jake Tapper asked Donald a “complex” question. Why are his voters not concerned with his inability or refusal to come up with a reasonable answer.
And it happens over and over. And each time it needs to be “explained.” The trumpsplaining is destroying any civic discourse we have. It is insensible. Just look around.
The suggestion that there is some kind of moral equivalence between expelling and killing people, one one hand, and stopping immigration on the other is frankly quite suspect. I do not lock my door because I hate my neighbor and he does not lock his door because he hates me. The extension of the wall and door in my residence is the border of a nation, and it can be closed metaphorically or literally. And when I tell my friend my door is always open to them I still expect them to knock first.
The republican tent that has largely rejected Trump if not actually supported Clinton? Or some other one?
Why are democrats so in love with Republicans all of a sudden? Reagan this, Romney that, HRC worked close with GWB here… 2016 is literally bizarro land. Four years ago Romney was Hitler. You have those articles handy? I remember the pictures. Well, it’s old hat to me, maybe it works on the young kids. I think you mistake people tired of being called racists for nothing for being ok with racism. I assure you they’re not the same thing, though such assurances probably don’t mean much.
Did I? I thought I explained why I no longer considered myself a Democrat. When Sanders said whites didn’t know what poverty was like, when Clinton decided she had to lecture me on hard times—what’s the buzzword now? Dog whistle? She wasn’t talking to me. I’m a deplorable. I might even be irredeemable. She was talking to you.
He shouldn’t have said that, and the fact he did say that is probably in part responsible for the fact he isn’t the Democratic candidate.
Mind providing the full quote?
The “deplorables” are specifically the racist, sexist, and xenophobic elements of Trump’s base, like the nice lady with “88” tattooed on her hand referenced earlier. Not a label I personally would claim for myself.
This wasn’t about immigration. Trump singled out Muslims. He said he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country. That’s no different than wanting to ban Jews from entering the country.
Religious bigotry has been responsible for the worst atrocities in human history, and indifference to religious bigotry has allowed these atrocities. Many or most Germans in the 30s were indifferent to mistreatment of Jews. You are indifferent to Trump’s proposed mistreatment of Muslims (which is awful, but still not nearly as awful as the Holocaust). I’m not indifferent - I strongly oppose religious bigotry in whatever form it takes.
The one that still shows that he has 40% of the vote, no matter what he does.
Because is very easy to find Republicans that do realize that Trump is not what conservatism was supposed to be.
And that is the reason why I’m looking at a lot of conservative media that does show character, they indeed know that country should be ahead of party. Specially when the party is going astray.
You have this all wrong, we are not looking at Romney or Reagan because they were misguided then, we look at them to see how wrong many Republicans that will vote for trump are.
Incidentally, Romney and others do know how foolish the current path the Republican party has by supporting Trump.
It is not the Democrats who are so in love with Republicans all of a sudden, it is the Republican leaders and the most respected conservative sources that before claimed that Democrats were only making a caricature of the Republicans. They and many conservatives have found now that there are many conservatives that are preferring the caricature indeed.