Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VII

[Stacko]

1) Again, I find it a sad and depressing world view if one can paint roughly 4 out of 10 of his fellow citizens as "vile scum".

Probably because it's closer to 1 out of 5 of his fellow citizens which seems unfortunately accurate. Voter turnout isn't 100% and no where near 100% of the population votes.

 

[Garrison]

We've watched around 400,000 Syrians die with whatever our course is in that country. If Hillary continues on the same course, is 800,000 dead Syrians a few years from now acceptable?

And how exactly was the US supposed to prevent the civil war in Syria?

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and Obamacare are becoming a larger and larger problem, and together with exploding debt could figuratively bankrupt the country without some steps being taken. Will we be happy with 4 or 8 more years of Democratic "whistling past the graveyard" and the eventual collapse or severe curtailment of these programs?

Oddly I was under the impression Congress was controlled by the Republicans for much of the last 8 years, that you class 'Obamacare' as a bad thing speaks volumes about your political stance.

I'm NOT blindly assuming the Republicans could do a better job, nor that Trump has any articulable plans to deal with the above. Just that some Trump supporters see him as an alternative to a dystopian future that the envision Hillary leading them into. Which, in my book, perhaps makes them misguided - but hardly deserving of the invective heaped upon them by some here.

the invective is heaped on them for supporting a candidate who is a racist, a misogynist, a conman, and who wants to roll back the 1st amendment. If anyone is still supporting Trump at this point they've pretty much used up the benefit of the doubt.

 

[phiwum]

Tony's pointed it out already, but it deserves repeating: At this juncture, people voting for Trump are either racists or are willing to support racism.

First, let's be clear: not everyone views it as given that Trump is racist. The ability to see what you want to see, and overlook what makes you uncomfortable, is very strong. A decent person who does not pay much attention to the election may come away thinking that accusations of racism are false. Maybe we shouldn't be too ready to forgive them for their ignorance on this, but this happens to all of us to varying degrees.

Second, there are obviously times in which reluctantly going with the racist candidate is better than the alternative. Racism is not literally the worst thing in the world. If Smith says that black people are lazy and he'll work to change that, while Jones says that the way out of the Middle East is through judicious use of nuclear weapons, then I'll vote for the racist -- not because I'm okay with racism, but because it is better than the alternative at this time.

This is how some people (ignorantly) view Clinton: as an evil, selfish crook who will happily harm the nation so long as she profits. Trump, on the other hand, is despicable but not deliberately harmful and his worst policies can be prevented (they think). Therefore, despite the regrettable fact that Trump is racist, he is the better candidate.

This reasoning is wrong, I think, but it is not the same as "being okay with racism". If it is, then I'm okay with racism when I vote for Smith.

 

[CapelDodger]

It was smart (and transparent) of the Trump campaign to let him deliver his "Gettysburg address" after the debates.

Trump would have been unable to elaborate on the details of his proposals.

Quite. I've said myself a few times, the all-purpose killer question for Trump is "Could you elaborate on that?".

 

[Tony Stark]

First, let's be clear: not everyone views it as given that Trump is racist. The ability to see what you want to see, and overlook what makes you uncomfortable, is very strong. A decent person who does not pay much attention to the election may come away thinking that accusations of racism are false. Maybe we shouldn't be too ready to forgive them for their ignorance on this, but this happens to all of us to varying degrees.

Second, there are obviously times in which reluctantly going with the racist candidate is better than the alternative. Racism is not literally the worst thing in the world. If Smith says that black people are lazy and he'll work to change that, while Jones says that the way out of the Middle East is through judicious use of nuclear weapons, then I'll vote for the racist -- not because I'm okay with racism, but because it is better than the alternative at this time.

This is how some people (ignorantly) view Clinton: as an evil, selfish crook who will happily harm the nation so long as she profits. Trump, on the other hand, is despicable but not deliberately harmful and his worst policies can be prevented (they think). Therefore, despite the regrettable fact that Trump is racist, he is the better candidate.

This reasoning is wrong, I think, but it is not the same as "being okay with racism". If it is, then I'm okay with racism when I vote for Smith.

*********** please. The vast majority of Trump voters would vote for him no matter who the Democratic candidate was.

**** them.

 

[Foolmewunz]

First, let's be clear: not everyone views it as given that Trump is racist. The ability to see what you want to see, and overlook what makes you uncomfortable, is very strong. A decent person who does not pay much attention to the election may come away thinking that accusations of racism are false. Maybe we shouldn't be too ready to forgive them for their ignorance on this, but this happens to all of us to varying degrees.

Second, there are obviously times in which reluctantly going with the racist candidate is better than the alternative. Racism is not literally the worst thing in the world. If Smith says that black people are lazy and he'll work to change that, while Jones says that the way out of the Middle East is through judicious use of nuclear weapons, then I'll vote for the racist -- not because I'm okay with racism, but because it is better than the alternative at this time.

This is how some people (ignorantly) view Clinton: as an evil, selfish crook who will happily harm the nation so long as she profits. Trump, on the other hand, is despicable but not deliberately harmful and his worst policies can be prevented (they think). Therefore, despite the regrettable fact that Trump is racist, he is the better candidate.

This reasoning is wrong, I think, but it is not the same as "being okay with racism". If it is, then I'm okay with racism when I vote for Smith.

In an interview with The Five Biographers, Politico asked them, in wrap-up, that now that the media appears to be making up for having created the monster and is publishing everything that they can find, do they feel that there's still any area where the media is failing. Four of five of his biographers said.... "the racism... of Trump, his cronies, his campaign".

Anyone who thinks that pointing out Trump's appeal to bigotry, xenophobia and misogyny is misleading? Is living in a parallel universe.

 

[phiwum]

*********** please. The vast majority of Trump voters would vote for him no matter who the Democratic candidate was.

**** them.

First, your claim about the vast majority of Trump voters requires evidence. I don't know that it's true at all. It might be, because people tend to be partisan, but it might not be, because Trump is an exceptionally bad candidate.

Second, you've made a claim about all Trump voters, not the vast majority. If you amend the claim to just the vast majority, then we'll actually have made substantial progress.

Aside from that, your response shows once again a careful reading of my argument and a thoughtful point-by-point refutation. You are indeed a critical thinker par excellence!

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And how exactly was the US supposed to prevent the civil war in Syria?

Perhaps a topic for another thread. We can say that a given course of action or inaction had a tragic result without necessarily knowing what affect other courses may have had.

Oddly I was under the impression Congress was controlled by the Republicans for much of the last 8 years, that you class 'Obamacare' as a bad thing speaks volumes about your political stance.


the invective is heaped on them for supporting a candidate who is a racist, a misogynist, a conman, and who wants to roll back the 1st amendment. If anyone is still supporting Trump at this point they've pretty much used up the benefit of the doubt.

I was putting forth a view on how some Trump supporters may feel their positions are rational and that Hillary is worse. Not that I necessarily agree with them.

Or maybe they are just all vile scum. Simplistic world views at least have the advantage of being simple!

 

[zorro99]

In his Gettysburg speech, Trump promised to sue women he claims falsely accused him of groping them. Something of a letdown from the original Gettysburg address.

 

[phiwum]

In an interview with The Five Biographers, Politico asked them, in wrap-up, that now that the media appears to be making up for having created the monster and is publishing everything that they can find, do they feel that there's still any area where the media is failing. Four of five of his biographers said.... "the racism... of Trump, his cronies, his campaign".

Anyone who thinks that pointing out Trump's appeal to bigotry, xenophobia and misogyny is misleading? Is living in a parallel universe.

But that response actually supports my comment. Because the media does not talk enough about the racism of Trump and his campaign, one might dismiss such claims coming from Democrats, the Clinton campaign, etc.

In any case, as I said, I'm not sure we should forgive semi-willful ignorance on an issue like this, so let's focus on the other point I made: one might be willing to vote for a racist without being "okay with racism".

 

[Tony Stark]

First, your claim about the vast majority of Trump voters requires evidence. I don't know that it's true at all. It might be, because people tend to be partisan, but it might not be, because Trump is an exceptionally bad candidate.

Second, you've made a claim about all Trump voters, not the vast majority. If you amend the claim to just the vast majority, then we'll actually have made substantial progress.

Aside from that, your response shows once again a careful reading of my argument and a thoughtful point-by-point refutation. You are indeed a critical thinker par excellence!

100% of Trump voters are racists or ok with racism. I am not backing off that claim since it is true. It is possible that some of them would be less ok with it if the Democrat was someone else. Though this would definitely be a small minority.

And frankly I just think you are making excuses for vile scumbags.

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Tony Stark]

But that response actually supports my comment. Because the media does not talk enough about the racism of Trump and his campaign, one might dismiss such claims coming from Democrats, the Clinton campaign, etc.

In any case, as I said, I'm not sure we should forgive semi-willful ignorance on an issue like this, so let's focus on the other point I made: one might be willing to vote for a racist without being "okay with racism".

Voting for a racist makes you at least ok with racism.

 

[Garrison]

Or maybe they are just all vile scum. Simplistic world views at least have the advantage of being simple!

No it's not simplistic. When a man admits to sexual assault, when he agrees its okay to call his own daughter a 'piece of ass', when his foundation has to pay a fine for making an improper payment( read bribe) to a politician, when he's facing trial for fraud, when he constantly make racist remarks, when he threatens to have people tortured, and have US soldiers commit war crimes. When he threatens to ban all Muslims from entering the USA, and attacks a Gold Star family for calling him out on it. When he praises the likes of Vladimir Putin and suggest he won't support NATO allies, and embraces nuclear proliferation, and wants to end US support for efforts to combat global warming, then I think you can quite reasonably conclude there are only two classes of people supporting him, the delusional and the despicable.

 

[phiwum]

100% of Trump voters are racists or ok with racism. I am not backing off that claim since it is true. It is possible that some of them would be less ok with it if the Democrat was someone else. Though this would definitely be a small minority.

And frankly I just think you are making excuses for vile scumbags.

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated text redacted.

No, I'm pointing out your own intolerance here. Why not tell me this? Go back to Smith, a candidate who believes that African-Americans are lazy, vs. Jones, one who wants to end Middle East conflict using nukes. If these are your two choices, do you vote for Smith or Jones?

If you vote for Smith, does that mean you're okay with racism?

Far as I am concerned it means this: in certain situations, the alternative is so bad, that I will prefer the racist candidate. It does not mean that I am okay with racism, since that phrase suggests that I don't object to racism at all. I might object to it, but still find it better than certain alternatives.

Similarly, Trump voters might object to Trump's racism while still thinking he is better than Hillary. Thus, they are not "okay with racism", but rather have made the determination that the racist here is less harmful than the alternative.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Similarly, Trump voters might object to Trump's racism while still thinking he is better than Hillary. Thus, they are not "okay with racism", but rather have made the determination that the racist here is less harmful than the alternative.

I can agree with this. Either they are racist, okay with racism, or (in the case you just described) really stupid.

 

[phiwum]

Voting for a racist makes you at least ok with racism.

No, Tony, it doesn't.

It means that you find the racist candidate the better option in this election, even though you may find racism abhorrent.

Being "ok with racism" means that racism doesn't bother you. Voting for the racist candidate does not entail that racism doesn't bother you.

I'm not okay with Hillary's email scandal. It and the deceit following bother me considerably. I will vote for Hillary nonetheless, because the email scandal pales in comparison to the horror of a Trump presidency.

 

[phiwum]

No it's not simplistic. When a man admits to sexual assault, when he agrees its okay to call his own daughter a 'piece of ass', when his foundation has to pay a fine for making an improper payment( read bribe) to a politician, when he's facing trial for fraud, when he constantly make racist remarks, when he threatens to have people tortured, and have US soldiers commit war crimes. When he threatens to ban all Muslims from entering the USA, and attacks a Gold Star family for calling him out on it. When he praises the likes of Vladimir Putin and suggest he won't support NATO allies, and embraces nuclear proliferation, and wants to end US support for efforts to combat global warming, then I think you can quite reasonably conclude there are only two classes of people supporting him, the delusional and the despicable.

If "delusional" includes "ignorant", then that's a lot closer to my view.

 

[jimbob]

No, I'm pointing out your own intolerance here. Why not tell me this? Go back to Smith, a candidate who believes that African-Americans are lazy, vs. Jones, one who wants to end Middle East conflict using nukes. If these are your two choices, do you vote for Smith or Jones?

If you vote for Smith, does that mean you're okay with racism?

Far as I am concerned it means this: in certain situations, the alternative is so bad, that I will prefer the racist candidate. It does not mean that I am okay with racism, since that phrase suggests that I don't object to racism at all. I might object to it, but still find it better than certain alternatives.

Similarly, Trump voters might object to Trump's racism while still thinking he is better than Hillary. Thus, they are not "okay with racism", but rather have made the determination that the racist here is less harmful than the alternative.

Except in this case Trump is both Smith and Jones, whilst Clinton is neither.

 

[Garrison]

Voting for a racist makes you at least ok with racism.

At best Trump supporters are giving him a pass on his racism/misogyny/islamophobia because they've convinced themselves Clinton is the devil incarnate or they are single issue voters who could care less so long as he does the one thing they want. At worst its why they support him to begin with. There is nowhere you can be on the spectrum between those two and not be either despicable or delusional.

 

[Garrison]

If "delusional" includes "ignorant", then that's a lot closer to my view.

Only if you mean willfully ignorant, we are talking about people to whom facts are not simply irrelevant but bad.