National Emergency

And I don't disagree on that point.

But political reality sadly sometimes requires some unfairness.

You've got to sell a little harder to the people further away from you. That's a bit cynical and maybe a little manipulative, but it is a thing.

To be fair, I'm not trying to sell anything or talking about a group of people. I'm asking one person how they came to their decision that one quote swung them against Clinton that hard compared to someone like Trump.
 
To be fair, I'm not trying to sell anything or talking about a group of people. I'm asking one person how they came to their decision that one quote swung them against Clinton that hard compared to someone like Trump.

Because at least some of them were looking for reasons to not like Hillary and not looking for reasons to not like Trump.

My evidence is all politics ever of all time.
 
Following a quotation of my one post in this thread, ServiceSoon wrote:

That much is accurate, if "soon" is taken to mean several years and "the Mexican State of Texas" is taken to be one of the political units in which US immigrants outnumbered other citizens of Mexico. (In the state of Coahuila y Tejas, comprised of three districts (not states) including one that more or less coincided with the parts of modern Texas then claimed by Mexico, English-speaking settlers were a minority.)

Not at all. Those who bother to check will find I wrote nothing that could be construed as such a claim.
I asked a question to help me further my understanding of your position and/or your objection to my statement. I was not intending to misconstrue your position. Since you took issue with the first form of this question, what if I ask it in the opposite way "Do you agree that non-Mexican immigrants outnumbering Mexican Citizens played a role in the switch of ownership for this parcel of land?

True.

Nonetheless, you attributed two serious errors to the slide show you saw in St Louis, in addition to omitting a rather important fact that's highly relevant here: Years after Mexico had declared its independence from Spain, but shortly before that independence had been achieved, Moses Austin negotiated a land grant with the Spanish governor of Mexico that called for a settlement of 300 immigrant families. Moses Austin died soon thereafter, and the settlement was accomplished by his son, Stephen F Austin, during the years after Mexico had achieved its independence. Austin and his settlers maintained generally good relations with the government of newly independent Mexico, which of course included Texas at that time, leading to more immigration of English-speaking settlers into Texas. Conflicts eventually arose, including a conflict over the settlers' importation of slaves, leading Austin to support Santa Anna's rise to power. Mexico eventually feared the United States might attempt to annex Texas; in 1832 the English-speaking settlers of Texas held a convention designed to reaffirm their loyalty to Mexico while requesting reforms such as a return to less restrictive immigration policy and a greater degree of influence within, or some degree of independence from, Coahuila y Tejas (which included Mexican Texas).
Can you please explain how any of the additional details you provided in this post invalidate my original claim that, "the allegiance, customs, ideas, and ambitions of the inhabitants affect the governance of a providence."

There are many different ways to peacefully change the type of government in a community that is already established; one of those ways is through the entry of immigrants. I would describe this method as a hostile takeover .

In the following, I have highlighted your errors of commission:

Following the Texas Revolution of 1836, Texas became the independent Republic of Texas; Texas has never been a US territory. Although a majority of Texans would probably have preferred for Texas to be annexed by the United States, that course was opposed by political leaders of the US because Texas would have become a slave-holding state and also because annexation would have led immediately to war with Mexico, as did result when Texas became part of the United States in 1845/1846.
I agree that I made an error when I said that Mexico did not control immigration to their territory. At first, they did indeed welcome immigrants. Later, they reversed that position and severely restricted immigration. One of the reasons for that was the fear that they would lose the territory to the new inhabitants. That fear turned out to manifest.

I was also mistaken when I said that Mexican territory became a US territory or they could have voted for allegiance to the US. However, what is important and still supports my original thesis, is that Mexico lost control of that territory as a result of non-Mexican citizens (Legal Immigrants).

If I make the following changes to my original statement, can you agree with it?
Servicesoon said:
This is a cautionary tale; Mexican Authorities lost ownership of the parcel of land known today as Texas, due to the amount of non-Mexican immigrants that resided in the Mexican territory.

In this example, immigration completely transformed the lives of the people whom lived in this territory. Concern for immigration into a country isn't automatically racist or bigoted, sometimes it's a realistic concern that has been proven possible by historical examples.
 
You're saying that calling Trump out on pandering to racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic people, Clinton put herself on a similar level of undesirableness as the guy who was pandering to racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic people?

I think that those people picked up the "deplorables" label as a badge of honor. "I'm a deplorable!" sure sounds better than "I'm a racist homophobe!"

(They could frame themselves as the victims of hate instead of the aggressors.)
 
Last edited:
You're saying that calling Trump out on pandering to racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic people, Clinton put herself on a similar level of undesirableness as the guy who was pandering to racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic people?

No, she said that half of his base deserved to be painted with that broad brush. It made me question which half she believed should be included and how far the splatter flew.

I voted for her, but that, and actions that seemed to make it clear that many of us in the "fly-over" states were just not important to her, put her in the same class of "people who spout things just to get elected." The next Democratic candidate needs to understand that such loose language sticks in the minds of those are neither die-hard reds or blues.
 
"Oh, Hillary called racists deplorable. I'll show her, by siding with the racists!!"

But, in not making it clear who was included in that list of nasty character traits, she made some feel she was making too wide-spread an assumption. There are Trump supporters who are not included in that statement and, while I fully realize that she made that clear, it was the type of statement that undoubtedly generated a groan within her circle of advisers. And is the type of pronouncement I am arguing needs to be guarded against in the next campaign.

By the way, I never said anyone sided with the racists because of that statement. That was all you.
 
But, in not making it clear who was included in that list of nasty character traits, she made some feel she was making too wide-spread an assumption.

She specified exactly who she was talking about. If one didn't consider themselves part of those groups, then they weren't included.

By the way, I never said anyone sided with the racists because of that statement. That was all you.

Yes, that's the very obscure literary trick known as "hyperbole".
 
But, in not making it clear who was included in that list of nasty character traits, she made some feel she was making too wide-spread an assumption.

I posted the quote. How much clearer did she have to make it?

Incidentally, I am also in flyover country and grew up in a small mid-western towns (with a short stint in Texas). I can't tell you how many times since the election, I've been told that I don't know what it's like in rural America.
 
Incidentally, I am also in flyover country and grew up in a small mid-western towns (with a short stint in Texas). I can't tell you how many times since the election, I've been told that I don't know what it's like in rural America.

I was amused by a Youtuber who claimed that city liberals didn't understand what the "average" American wants, which is odd considering that 63% of Americans live in cities.
 
Last edited:
I posted the quote. How much clearer did she have to make it?

Incidentally, I am also in flyover country and grew up in a small mid-western towns (with a short stint in Texas). I can't tell you how many times since the election, I've been told that I don't know what it's like in rural America.

And there is no such thing as a single Rural America. A small town in Alabams is different then a small town in Kansas which is different then a small town in California.
 
And there is no such thing as a single Rural America. A small town in Alabams is different then a small town in Kansas which is different then a small town in California.

Well, of course they are. But, somehow, because I thought Trump was an idiotic choice for President, my experiences as a midwestern American are not the experiences of a Real American™. (Heard that one a lot, too.)
 
No, she said that half of his base deserved to be painted with that broad brush. It made me question which half she believed should be included and how far the splatter flew.

I voted for her, but that, and actions that seemed to make it clear that many of us in the "fly-over" states were just not important to her, put her in the same class of "people who spout things just to get elected." The next Democratic candidate needs to understand that such loose language sticks in the minds of those are neither die-hard reds or blues.

That's full of crap. This is such an absurd analysis of what she said. It's people LOOKING to be offended and seizing on anything so they can be. Hillary's remark was hyperbolic to be sure, but the point was Trump was appealing to xenophobia and racism and that is who she was talking about when she called half his supporters deplorables.

Sure, describing 'half' his supporters as deplorables may have been an exaggeration, but it very likely had no effect on anyones vote considering all the awful things Trump said. I'm convinced that anyone who says that turned them against Hillary are being disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
That's full of crap. This is such an absurd analysis of what she said. It's people LOOKING to be offended and seizing on anything so they can be. Hillary's remark was hyperbolic to be sure, but the point was Trump was appealing to xenophobia and racism and that is who she was talking about when she call half his supporters deplorables.

Sure, describing 'half' his supporters as deplorables may have been an exaggeration, it very likely had no effect on anyones vote considering all the awful things Trump said. I'm convinced that anyone who says that turned them against Hillary are being disingenuous.

Which is all 100% true and 100% beside the point since there's no way to vet voters for disingenuous motivations.

Yeah it would be wonderful if we somehow had a magical "This vote doesn't count because the person casting it is wrong/hypocritical about the main reason they are casting it" machine at every polling station, but we don't.

Votes you lose because the voters aren't being reasonable are still votes you lost.

Politics is the game of still getting those votes and the Democrats acting like they are just too good to play it (usually as an after the fact rationalization for the fact that they just aren't good at it) is not doing them any favors.
 
But did they? Were any votes lost because of her comment? I doubt it, actually.

This.

I live in pretty much the definition of rural America (Arkansas).

There is no one I heard complaining about the deplorable comment that hadn't already been complaining about everything else Hillary beforehand. While they may not have decide to vote Trump, they had already decided they would NOT vote Hillary.

I don't think she lost much from that, it just gave a lot of people who already weren't going to vote for her a thin rationalization.
 
I don't think Joe's take is any more simplistic than the take of "drugs are bad and should be illegal".
That's oversimplified too, obviously it leaves out which drugs under which circumstances should be illegal.

When seatbelts were introduced then later mandated, one didn't argue, so what a lot of people die of heart disease. If they choose not to wear the seatbelt how does that differ from choosing a bad diet?

Joe's argument leaves out a gazillion issues in those drug overdoses.
 
Really?

Here's what she actually said:


You're saying that calling Trump out on pandering to racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic people, Clinton put herself on a similar level of undesirableness as the guy who was pandering to racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic people?
Yet another case where the news media sold the scandal, Clinton said something bad, and the main media never reported on the real story.

It was the same with the coal jobs comment, the news media left out the next sentence, so we have to create new jobs for them.

I also fault Clinton for doing a poor job of countering the misleading partial statements.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, I'm not trying to sell anything or talking about a group of people. I'm asking one person how they came to their decision that one quote swung them against Clinton that hard compared to someone like Trump.

I never said that any quote swung me against Clinton, I said it made it more difficult to decide between the two. It was a race between two awful candidates. It is obvious now that one was vastly more so than the other and I feel fortunate that it was not the one for which I voted.

If anyone had told me in 2014 that the Republicans could field a candidate that could cause me to vote for Clinton, I would have found it amusing. I freely admit being one of the many who thought that surely they had more sense than to nominate someone like Trump. I hoped they would quickly come to their senses, but recent events points to doubling down on the stupid.
 
Which is all 100% true and 100% beside the point since there's no way to vet voters for disingenuous motivations.

Yeah it would be wonderful if we somehow had a magical "This vote doesn't count because the person casting it is wrong/hypocritical about the main reason they are casting it" machine at every polling station, but we don't.

Votes you lose because the voters aren't being reasonable are still votes you lost.

Politics is the game of still getting those votes and the Democrats acting like they are just too good to play it (usually as an after the fact rationalization for the fact that they just aren't good at it) is not doing them any favors.

I'm just saying that this remark was irrelevant in regards to their vote. Not that their votes didn't count. Whether Hillary or the Democrats did a competent job appealing to say rural voters is another issue. Or are you saying that she should have been tailoring her remarks to appeal to racists and xenophobes?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom