National Emergency

Meanwhile...!

What's the situation along the Mexico border today? How many MS-13 drug-addled crazy women and kids from the Honduras charged across the open border to murder some innocent Americans last night? Surely it must be an emergency by now!




<<crickets>>
 
BobTheCoward said:
And by "less likely to react negatively" you mean somehow getting more than the 2 million more votes than Trump?
Click to expand...
And the recent mid-terms, after which, of course, the GOP had to resort to awarding themselves a triumph for not losing the Senate at a particularly advantageous point in the cycle. Imagine how it might have been if the Democrats hadn't only thrown softballs the way they clearly didn't.
 
Elvis666 said:
True, but if the Democrats could put a moratorium on throwing softballs to the GOP, if the rhetoric were toned down, the voters who are independent would be less likely to react negatively.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're using "throwing softballs" correctly. I think you mean "put a moratorium on shooting themselves in the foot", i.e. giving the Great Right Wing Noise Machine material to exploit. (Post Jussie Smollet you'll see a tremendous example of this developing.)

As Ginger pointed out, the GRWNM will create Trip to Molehill Mountain, regardless. Witness "But her Emails!" Witness "Swift Voters for Dystopia". Witness "She gave away our uranium!" Witness "Kamala Harris is a slut!" The list is endless.

But, ironically, it's those independent voters reacting negatively that just turned over forty House seats. Two years ago, those same voters all said, "Well, he's an ass but she's a crook and we need a breath of fresh air!" In 2018 they said, "Oops, I guess that wasn't such a good idea. Did I vote for these cretins?"
 
JoeMorgue said:
No more or less so then the thousands of people who die from other of their own personal choices.

I don't think the police should kick my neighbor's door in and force him to stop eating red meat and instead have a salad either. That's not logically or morally equivalent to "not minding thousands of deaths from heart disease."
Click to expand...
You oversimplify the situation.
 
Trump Tweets

THE WALL IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW!

Quote Tweet
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
We have just built this powerful Wall in New Mexico. Completed on January 30, 2019 – 47 days ahead of schedule! Many miles more now under construction! #FinishTheWall

https://twitter.com/i/status/1098295228837048325
 
Elvis666 said:
You are not wrong. But the Democratic Party has to realize that calling a significant portion of the voters derogatory names will result in some of the independent minority turning against them, even if those independents are not meant to be included in that group.
Click to expand...
I assume you are referring to things like the 'deplorables' comment. Do we have any proof that that actually caused more independents to support Trump?

To be honest, it sounds like a rather bizarre form of logic... "Oh, she called a group that includes neonazis 'deplorable'... I think I'm going to throw my support to Trump".

At best it provided some sort of 'mantra' for Trump supporters, but I can't see it really being anything that would have added to his base.
 
Foolmewunz said:
But, ironically, it's those independent voters reacting negatively that just turned over forty House seats. Two years ago, those same voters all said, "Well, he's an ass but she's a crook and we need a breath of fresh air!" In 2018 they said, "Oops, I guess that wasn't such a good idea. Did I vote for these cretins?"
Click to expand...

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.
 
Segnosaur said:
I assume you are referring to things like the 'deplorables' comment. Do we have any proof that that actually caused more independents to support Trump?

To be honest, it sounds like a rather bizarre form of logic... "Oh, she called a group that includes neonazis 'deplorable'... I think I'm going to throw my support to Trump".

At best it provided some sort of 'mantra' for Trump supporters, but I can't see it really being anything that would have added to his base.
Click to expand...

Oh come on we're talking a system where one bad photo-op in a tank or one goofy sounding scream at campaign speech can sink you.

Voters aren't logical. Politics is not exact.

True, probably nobody (within a rounding error) literally had the thought process "Hillary called X subdemographic of the Y demographic I am part of an insulting term, I'm going to steer into the skid and become the very insulted subdemographic that I was insulted she lumped in with my broader demographic just to show her" but that's not the same thing as it not having an effect.

"You can't show me where voters made this as admitted, thoughtful conscious decision" is not the same thing as "Had no effect."
 
Elvis666 said:
But the Democratic Party has to realize that calling a significant portion of the voters derogatory names will result in some of the independent minority turning against them, even if those independents are not meant to be included in that group.
Click to expand...

Segnosaur said:
I assume you are referring to things like the 'deplorables' comment. Do we have any proof that that actually caused more independents to support Trump?

To be honest, it sounds like a rather bizarre form of logic... "Oh, she called a group that includes neonazis 'deplorable'... I think I'm going to throw my support to Trump".

At best it provided some sort of 'mantra' for Trump supporters, but I can't see it really being anything that would have added to his base.
Click to expand...

Moreover, why wouldn't that logic work both ways? It's not like Trump doesn't call people derogatory names. Why would doing so not hurt him?
 
Segnosaur said:
I assume you are referring to things like the 'deplorables' comment. Do we have any proof that that actually caused more independents to support Trump?

To be honest, it sounds like a rather bizarre form of logic... "Oh, she called a group that includes neonazis 'deplorable'... I think I'm going to throw my support to Trump".

At best it provided some sort of 'mantra' for Trump supporters, but I can't see it really being anything that would have added to his base.
Click to expand...

No proof at all, but I do know it left a bad taste in my mouth, and caused the decision to be much harder to make. It helped make 2016 a choice between two undesirable candidates.
 
Upchurch said:
Moreover, why wouldn't that logic work both ways? It's not like Trump doesn't call people derogatory names. Why would doing so not hurt him?
Click to expand...

I think it does, which is why the Democrats need to avoid it as much as possible. I want their candidate to be the obvious choice for independents.
 
Elvis666 said:
No proof at all, but I do know it left a bad taste in my mouth, and caused the decision to be much harder to make. It helped make 2016 a choice between two undesirable candidates.
Click to expand...

Really?

Here's what she actually said:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Elvis666 is saying that Hillary's statement reduced the chances of people who were on the fence to move to her side.

Upchurch is saying the statement was accurate.

I'm saying they are both right and those two statements don't really disprove each other directly.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Elvis666 is saying that Hillary's statement reduced the chances of people who were on the fence to move to her side.

Upchurch is saying the statement was accurate.

I'm saying they are both right and those two statements don't really disprove each other directly.
Click to expand...

My point was a little more subtle than that, more along the lines of a false equivalence or double standard.
 
Upchurch said:
My point was a little more subtle than that, more along the lines of a false equivalence or double standard.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom