Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VII

phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right. I'm intolerant of people that vote for racists. They can all go screw themselves as far as I am concerned.

I'll change my phrasing to say that all Trump voters find it acceptable for the President of the United States to be a racist.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I can agree with this. Either they are racist, okay with racism, or (in the case you just described) really stupid.
Click to expand...

I prefer the milder, less offensive term "ignorant", but okay.

There is another possibility. Despite your previous comments, I think a decent, thoughtful person can honestly believe that abortion is murder and hence that voting for a pro-choice candidate is akin to sanctioning murder. I think that such a person can have a principled reason for being a (more or less[1]) one-issue candidate and decide that, no matter Trump's dangers, he cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate.

I'm not sure that I would call that ignorance. I think it's misguided, but not quite the same as ignorance.

[1] If the choice is between the pro-choice candidate and the pro-nuke-the-Middle-East candidate, I think that such a person would have to vote pro-choice or else be radically inconsistent.
 
phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...

It at they very least means they find it acceptable enough to vote for him. Which still makes them scumbags.
 
jimbob said:
Except in this case Trump is both Smith and Jones, whilst Clinton is neither.
Click to expand...

Well, he's not quite Jones, but he's a lot closer than Clinton, yes.

But many Trump supporters deeply dislike Trump (and racism) but still think that a Clinton presidency would be more harmful to the nation. Obviously, I do not agree, but my point is merely that such persons are not "okay with racism".
 
Garrison said:
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.
Click to expand...

All those appear to be excellent reasons to feel that Trump would be a horrible choice as President. Scanning the list, I think I agree with virtually all of them.

Which is a far cry from labeling all his supporters with a broad brush as delusional and/or despicable.

But the perception is the reality, so if that's how some choose to label the opposition, so be it.
 
Garrison said:
Only if you mean willfully ignorant, we are talking about people to whom facts are not simply irrelevant but bad.
Click to expand...

No, I don't mean just willfully ignorant. Perhaps negligently ignorant, but not necessarily willfully so.

Many people do not pay attention to much mainstream news (not even Fox). And many people gravitate towards unreliable online sources that agree with their biases, or believe lies from their friends. These people are not quite willfully ignorant, but they are failing in their duty to make a well-informed decision through negligence.

(This is one reason I think the duty to vote is nonsense. I'd prefer that those who can't be bothered to vote not be pressured to vote. They probably have not carefully examined the issues. I won't vote for any local candidates this year, for instance, because I've paid them no attention at all.)
 
Tony Stark said:
You're right. I'm intolerant of people that vote for racists. They can all go screw themselves as far as I am concerned.

I'll change my phrasing to say that all Trump voters find it acceptable for the President of the United States to be a racist.
Click to expand...

But so do I, if the choice is between Smith and Jones. So you can count me in that category, too. Per your judgment, I find it acceptable that the President is a racist (in certain pathological situations).

Your phrasing is a little more precise, but still misleading.
 
Donald down 12 points in new ABC poll. And:

Likely voters by a vast 69-24 percent disapprove of Trump’s response to questions about his treatment of women. After a series of allegations of past sexual misconduct, the poll finds that some women who’d initially given him the benefit of the doubt have since moved away.

Fifty-nine percent of likely voters, moreover, reject Trump’s suggestion that the election is rigged in Clinton’s favor, and more, 65 percent, disapprove of his refusal to say whether he’d accept a Clinton victory as legitimate. Most strongly disapprove, a relatively rare result.
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clin...d-boosted-broad-disapproval/story?id=42993821
 
Tony Stark said:
Looks like Donald got his first endorsement from a major paper.

http://m.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-donald-trump-president

Note that this paper is owned by Sheldon Adelson.
Click to expand...

I earlier suggested that the Daily Oklahoman would surely endorse Trump. I was wrong.

The two major newspapers of Oklahoma (the Oklahoman and Tulsa World) have chosen not to endorse this year. Every other newspaper in the state has endorsed Clinton.

It is remarkable that, even in some of the reddest states, journalists are almost unanimous in their refusal to endorse Trump.
 
SezMe said:
None of the above. I still subscribe to the notion that he never expected or intended to go beyond some primaries. He'd get his name out there, build his brand reputation and sell a gazillion more Art of the Deal books. Once he was on top of the pile of Republican losers his ego wouldn't let him walk away. The snowball was then barrelling down the slope and even he lost control. I'm not sure when the idea for Trump TV and Bannon infected his brain but, based on the lackluster enthusiasm since Debate III, I think that is now all he really cares about. It's a way for him to stay in the entertainment biz which is where his ego gets stroked.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the rallies. I've given a few speeches in front of as many as maybe thousand people. The adrenaline rush from that was amazing. Trump has had rallies of 10 to 20 thousand people. There is nothing like it. Probably as hard to give up as heroin.
 
phiwum said:
I earlier suggested that the Daily Oklahoman would surely endorse Trump. I was wrong.

The two major newspapers of Oklahoma (the Oklahoman and Tulsa World) have chosen not to endorse this year. Every other newspaper in the state has endorsed Clinton.

It is remarkable that, even in some of the reddest states, journalists are almost unanimous in their refusal to endorse Trump.
Click to expand...

Yep, the biggest paper in Arizona, the Arizona Republic, actually endorsed a Democrat for the first time ever because of how terrible Donald is. They got death threats from deplorables because of it.
 
Tony Stark said:
Yep, the biggest paper in Arizona, the Arizona Republic, actually endorsed a Democrat for the first time ever because of how terrible Donald is. They got death threats from deplorables because of it.
Click to expand...

Which means, really, that this endorsement says more about the editorial staff at the RJ than it does about Trump.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Your evasion is noted, as is your incorrect use of the term, "obviously".

TYVM
Click to expand...

Evasion? You listed a bunch of Trump ideas. Clearly I don't support them.


And it is obvious from this thread I don't support them (like my support for open borders contradicts a fence).
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Which means, really, that this endorsement says more about the editorial staff at the RJ than it does about Trump.
Click to expand...

No. It says that Adelson, who is a contributor to the campaign, got his paper to support his candidate. They likely would've reached that conclusion on their own - owners don't hire editorial staff with views diametrically opposed to their own, generally.

I still expect him to pick up a few more. The Union Leader in NH let him down, but I expect a lot of old money in the conservative camp is going their route - endorsing Johnson. But, the NY Post would seem a lock. I can see Murdock freeing the hands of the WSJ to go "no support this year" but the Post has the most die-hard right wing readership in the Tri-State area.
 
I think defining Trump voters is a good deal more complicated then just labeling them racist or okay with racism. In fact, as much as I dislike the idea of Trump serving as president, and as damaging as I think his campaign has been, I'm not sure I really understand the charge he is an overt racist.

It's complicated. Consider Rick Abraham, a second generation Arab/American, who is Muslim, who plans to vote for Trump. He lives in West Virginia, which used to be solidly Democratic but is now a state Trump is expected to carry. Abraham's a Republican (who voted for Obama) and this time around his first choice was Carly Fiorina, but as he realized how little support she was garnering he switched to Ben Carson. Now he not only supports Trump, he has a huge "Hillary for Prison" display on his store. It's very popular and people often stop and take selfies in front of it:
Both his grandfathers were born in Sultan Yacoub, a town that is now in Lebanon but was then part of Ottoman Syria. His paternal grandfather immigrated to America as a child; his name when he arrived was Abraham Dewud, but the immigration officers told him that his name was now Joe Abraham. He was a Muslim who never smoked or drank or ate pork. He married a local Christian woman and then, after she died, a Muslim...This grandfather used to get together with other Arabs in Logan and talk about the old country. When he died, he was buried by an imam. Link to New Yorker article
Click to expand...

As for Trump's more extreme positions Abraham had no problem with it:
Abraham saw Trump’s more extreme pronouncements as bargaining positions. Trump was a negotiator: if he wanted to buy a building for twenty million dollars, he wouldn’t go to the table offering twenty—he would offer ten, or five. So when he talked about building a wall and throwing eleven million people out of the country, Abraham figured he was just making an aggressive first offer, and after some negotiating he would end up with something reasonable.
Click to expand...

Abraham also worries about immigrants -- especially Muslim -- who do not want to assimilate. That it's okay to value your heritage and honor it, but you still have to want to be an American, become an American.
 
newyorkguy said:
I think defining Trump voters is a good deal more complicated then just labeling them racist or okay with racism. In fact, as much as I dislike the idea of Trump serving as president, and as damaging as I think his campaign has been, I'm not sure I really understand the charge he is an overt racist.

It's complicated. Consider Rick Abraham, a second generation Arab/American, who is Muslim, who plans to vote for Trump. He lives in West Virginia, which used to be solidly Democratic but is now a state Trump is expected to carry. Abraham's a Republican (who voted for Obama) and this time around his first choice was Carly Fiorina, but as he realized how little support she was garnering he switched to Ben Carson. Now he not only supports Trump, he has a huge "Hillary for Prison" display on his store. It's very popular and people often stop and take selfies in front of it:


As for Trump's more extreme positions Abraham had no problem with it:


Abraham also worries about immigrants -- especially Muslim -- who do not want to assimilate. That it's okay to value your heritage and honor it, but you still have to want to be an American, become an American.
Click to expand...

There is still his history of racial discrimination - I know that things were different in the 1970s but his subsequent statements haven't exactly demonstrated a Damascene conversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom