National Emergency

[Upchurch]

I never said that any quote swung me against Clinton, I said it made it more difficult to decide between the two.

Well, yeah, but why did it make it more difficult to decide?

It was not that broad of a brush to paint with, only the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic people who supported Trump. Although, there does seem to be more of them than I would like to believe possible in this day and age.

 

[gregthehammer]

who's to say the deplorable remark didn't actually bring in more votes for Hillary, because said deplorable persons figured by voting for Hillary, they would trash her name by association.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was the national emergency thread. My mistake.

 

[Hellbound]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was the national emergency thread. My mistake.

All roads lead to Hillary, don't you know?

 

[I Am The Scum]

All roads lead to Hillary, don't you know?

If Hillary hadn't lost the election, then Trump wouldn't be in the position where he just had to declare an emergency. Good thing we didn't entrust her with the presidency after that bungle.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was the national emergency thread. My mistake.

There is no emergency. What's left to discuss?

 

[Segnosaur]

All roads lead to Hillary, don't you know?

Unless of course that road has a wall built across it thanks to the state of emergency.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Why would the media that was misleading people by using partial statements made by Hillary give any extra time to her trying to point out the way they misled them.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't see anything ironic about it. That's exactly what happened. But that was for an election where more than one Democrat got to grab a gold ring. When the presidential race heats up, I fear we'll see a repeat of 2016, as 20-plus wannabes vie for the same seat.

You're using examples but they don't necessarily correlate. My comment said, "ironically" because the results in 2018 were counter to your analysis. Fed-up or disgruntled voters were fed-up by Trump and voted (per exit polls) against him.

Now you're saying that a large field means something... defeat? Trump came out of the largest field in recent memory. If your analogies were working, that would mean the outsider firebrand in the Democratic Party will let Kamala, Bernie and Biden split the votes and take pluralities but not majorities in enough early states to take the nomination. Might happen; might not.

I'm not arguing with your underlying causes being issues. I'm arguing that the effects aren't necessarily logical conclusions and thus the analogies aren't working.

 

[pgwenthold]

who's to say the deplorable remark didn't actually bring in more votes for Hillary, because said deplorable persons figured by voting for Hillary, they would trash her name by association.

Remember, Trump voters claim they liked to have a candidate who told it like it is and wasn't PC.

 

[Minoosh]

I keep wondering if wall supporters are bothered at all by Trump's shifting claims on the status of the project. His message started out simple: Build a big, beautiful wall. But it's gotten very complicated (no one knew walls could be so complicated). Now we've got steel slats, replacement projects billed as new and a mishmash of definitions that Trump, or someone, keeps tweeting about. Now, IMO the barrier should be a mishmash - there is no one design that works for 2,000 miles of border - but I wonder if the reality still has the same impact as the symbol he floated to get elected.

I always figured Trump's appeal probably had something to do with not having focus groups and trying to craft some slick message. But his tweets seem more and more stage-managed lately.

Some wall supporters are the same demographic being hit by fentanyl overdoses. Is that fence supposed to keep fentanyl (and the even deadlier carfentanil) out of the country? How? It's full of holes!

Maybe the gullible still believe it will keep the brown hordes from advancing. But they also know they've been lied to - a lot.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

Well, one good old boy, Mike Huckabee, certainly played it for what it was worth. The "deplorables" comment was an unfortunate sound byte that the Great Right Wing Noise Machine exploited. It wasn't to appeal to the deplorables. They are already voting their racist-xenophobic-misogynist party line. It was to get the soccer moms in suburbia and exurbia believing that Hillary said that if they were pondering voting for change - the Trump kind- then THEY TOO WERE DEPLORABLES.

The lie was dissected and refuted but as with position papers and debate statements the Dems haven't learned that you have to hammer the bejeezus out of your message. Every time a lying talking head mentioned it, there should've been thirty-seven Dem spokespersons lining up and asking them and the public why the right wing is making up such lies and distortions. Youtube, Twitter, Blimps, Billboards, everything.....

 

[acbytesla]

I don't see anything ironic about it. That's exactly what happened. But that was for an election where more than one Democrat got to grab a gold ring. When the presidential race heats up, I fear we'll see a repeat of 2016, as 20-plus wannabes vie for the same seat.

You're using examples but they don't necessarily correlate. My comment said, "ironically" because the results in 2018 were counter to your analysis. Fed-up or disgruntled voters were fed-up by Trump and voted (per exit polls) against him.

Now you're saying that a large field means something... defeat? Trump came out of the largest field in recent memory. If your analogies were working, that would mean the outsider firebrand in the Democratic Party will let Kamala, Bernie and Biden split the votes and take pluralities but not majorities in enough early states to take the nomination. Might happen; might not.

I'm not arguing with your underlying causes being issues. I'm arguing that the effects aren't necessarily logical conclusions and thus the analogies aren't working.

I don't get Elviss666's conclusions. I think what we learned in 2018 was the Democrats and Trump made EVERY RACE about him. And Trump lost the vast majority of them.

Comparing the 2016 to the 2018 to the 2020 elections is a huge mistake. How big the field is at this point is meaningless. What matters is the candidate picked and whether he can deliver. Nothing else really matters. That there is a huge Democratic field this time suggests that one hell of a lot of Democrats see a General election they can win if they can capture the nomination.

Normally, if economic conditions are good, the incumbent is almost impossible to beat. But nothing is normal when it comes to Chief Crazy Golden Showers.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Thank you.

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).

That is important to you, perhaps, but my participation in this thread has been limited to correcting your errors. Whether you believe the true history of Texas supports your thesis is not a matter of interest to me.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Remember, Trump voters claim they liked to have a candidate who told it like it is and wasn't PC.

But what they DON'T like is someone telling them that "what it REALLY is" is they are lazy ignorant dole-bludging goobers who shouldn't be allowed out walking without a license. Because that would hurt their feelings...perhaps it would even be politically incorrect.

 

[Toontown]

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.

Looking for Mr. Goodbar. Found Mr. Goodbar.

End of story.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no emergency. What's left to discuss?

Trump's wagging the 'emergency' dog; the idiots that buy his border fear mongering, wagers on whether his Tweets will convince the Trumper bought SCOTUS justices to go with confirmation biased rationalizations about POTUS powers or use their ******* brains and rule on the obvious abuse of power, and wagers on when the GOP Senators are going to stop supporting the bastard.

And maybe some other stuff.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would the media that was misleading people by using partial statements made by Hillary give any extra time to her trying to point out the way they misled them.

Of course they wouldn't have on their own. But that doesn't mean Clinton couldn't have influenced the public discussion with influential framing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

If you actually listened to her speech, she was calling the racists, the xenophobes and misogynists deplorable. This fact was lost on most of the public and media, as the conservatives wanted it to. Much like Al Gore invented the internet, her deplorable comment was taken out of context and weaponized. Fortunately, I think most Americans did understand the context at the time, they certainly do now. Trump cultists are deplorable, and this is more evident today than ever.

 

[wareyin]

Well, one good old boy, Mike Huckabee, certainly played it for what it was worth. The "deplorables" comment was an unfortunate sound byte that the Great Right Wing Noise Machine exploited. It wasn't to appeal to the deplorables. They are already voting their racist-xenophobic-misogynist party line. It was to get the soccer moms in suburbia and exurbia believing that Hillary said that if they were pondering voting for change - the Trump kind- then THEY TOO WERE DEPLORABLES.

The lie was dissected and refuted but as with position papers and debate statements the Dems haven't learned that you have to hammer the bejeezus out of your message. Every time a lying talking head mentioned it, there should've been thirty-seven Dem spokespersons lining up and asking them and the public why the right wing is making up such lies and distortions. Youtube, Twitter, Blimps, Billboards, everything.....

The Republican party sure does seem to be much more organized. It's amazing how they all seem to use the same terms and memes, all at the same time. It's almost like there is some sort of terminology playbook that gets sent out to FOX, Limbaugh, the politicians themselves, and every other GOP Pundit.

In contrast, the Dems just don't seem so organized. They don't have a centralized propaganda arm like the Great Right Wing Noise Machine to distribute easy soundbites for the hard of thinking to repeat. There's no Dem version of Reagan's 11th Commandment, either. As such, we just don't get the automatic wagon circling on that side.

I guess it's good that the Dems can think for themselves and be more individual, but it's sure harder to mobilize such people than it is those who can only think in bumper-sticker slogans.