Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

[Rogie21]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Today Trump didn't quite recant his recantation of birtherism. But in practice he did. When asked why he said President Obama was born in the United States he said this.

"Well, I just wanted to get on with, you know, we want to get on with the campaign. And a lot of people were asking me questions. And you know, we want to talk about jobs, we want to talk about the military. We want to talk about ISIS and how to get rid of ISIS. We want to really talk about bringing jobs back to this area because you've been decimated. So we really want to get just back onto the subject of jobs, military, taking care of our vets, et cetera."

So, of course, the reporter asked the logical follow-up: "Mr. Trump, we want to discuss those issues, too, but millions of Americans also want to know why you held and promoted a dishonest claim for so many years, simply for political gain."

The reporter asked that question, right?....Of course not, yet another failure of American journalism.

[aparch]

It turns out one of the candidates is for taking your guns away: https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/...&ICID=ref_fark

Chicago, at one point, led the nation in stop-and-frisk. It was stopped because it was ruled unconstitutional.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

There is a strong parallel in the overall idea: reducing humans to poisonous food.



But yes, the core of the analogy -- some of them are poison so would you risk eating them? -- is not the same as the Jewish mushrooms in which every one of them is poison.

Carrying the analogy out, though, and correcting it for the actual frequency involved -- we do this all the time. We let babies grow up even though some percentage of them will grow up to be murderers. Women, against all reasonable calculation of expected value, go out with men even though a vastly higher percentage of those men will wind up beating, raping, or killing them.

Yes, life is dangerous. Yes, some Syrian immigrants will be radicalized and some will even commit criminal or terrorist acts. But so will white people born here -- should we deport them? And the vast majority of Syrian refugees are huddled masses yearning to breath free, the main ingredient in America.

Ok, but we're not analyzing Dostoyevsky here, it's a bowl of skittles. God forbid anyone gets referred to as a bad egg.

Right, all Jews are poison mushrooms. 3/1000 skittles are bad. My bet is probably the green ones.

I don't really accept the vox analogy. It has other faults, but mainly it is based on past history as an indicator of future success. And we don't really have any history of refugee immigration from an active civil war zone where we are an active and major player, especially while that war is still going on. Nor do we have experience in the past of large scale immigration from countries containing active terrorist organizations like AQ and ISIS that are currently trying to foment terrorism here. We've not settled Palestinians have we? We might look to Europe and see how they've fared as at least an indicator if there's trouble brewing.

Of course life is dangerous, the fact of it doesn't preclude one from attempting to mitigate risks where one can. Your babies argument I dismiss as silly -- it presents no alternative except self-extinction. And certainly you're not suggesting women shouldn't be selective, or at the least, aren't free to take whatever precautions they may deem fit to provide for their own safety?

Funny about the last as our friend Slap Shot and I were discussing this (in what has now become the electricity thread) and he provided a NY Times article and another one that had a similar headline to this Newsweek one which all base themselves on a New America Think Tank chart that used to say that righty whitey killed 48 vs. jihadists only 26 over the last several years. Yesterday I linked to it and it said jihadists now had 94 and whitey was still mired at 48, presumably making jihadist now the more deadly threat. Although I can't say I totally buy the death toll as the only, or even best measure of what the threat is either way. A lot of these nut jobs strike out on their attempts as we've seen. Anyway, deport them? No. Arrest? Yes. I imagine we're efforting it.

Incidentally, New America is a liberal think tank headed by Mrs. Clinton's former assistant secretary and I guess it is working out well as it has apparently been shaping opinions in a lot of MSM over the last year or two. At least I keep running into this stat in it. What's funny to me is that since I linked to it yesterday they demolished the chart and redirected the page, which makes me suspicious one of you guys actually work there. :-)

I completely agree with your last sentence.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

There is a strong parallel in the overall idea: reducing humans to poisonous food.

But yes, the core of the analogy -- some of them are poison so would you risk eating them? -- is not the same as the Jewish mushrooms in which every one of them is poison.

Carrying the analogy out, though, and correcting it for the actual frequency involved -- we do this all the time. We let babies grow up even though some percentage of them will grow up to be murderers. Women, against all reasonable calculation of expected value, go out with men even though a vastly higher percentage of those men will wind up beating, raping, or killing them.

Yes, life is dangerous. Yes, some Syrian immigrants will be radicalized and some will even commit criminal or terrorist acts. But so will white people born here -- should we deport them? And the vast majority of Syrian refugees are huddled masses yearning to breath free, the main ingredient in America.

Very well said.

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Early morning platitude drivel alert:

The world is becoming a blended society, and the momentum will not slow; nor should it. It is our best hope for peace, I think, is that our children become increasingly international, working abroad or for companies that have substantial international interests, marrying persons who either have significant international ties or are citizens of other countries, creating families with mixed international and/or religious heritage, and forming close friendships through work and play with other young people from Korea, India, Quatar, Turkey and Jordan, and so forth . And this blending is not just happening in our cites, as it has for hundreds of years; it is happening in the global marketplace. There is a difference between expecting Poles, Irish, and Lebanese to come to this country and assimilate here, learning OUR language and OUR traditions, and getting to know them in their own homes and marketplaces, where we learn what their business, religious, and entertainment culture is all about. This is our hope, IMO, because it is harder to hate and fear a people you understand and have formed important relationships with. Isolationism, on the other hand, estranges.

Terrorism is more of a problem a blended world society, since there will be more bad guys among us and since conflicts are not just localized to other, usually developing areas of the world where we have become involved in order to fuel our cars and stock our supermarkets. So there will be those who will try to capitalize on the fear of these bad guys from other tribes order to grab power. Trump is one of these people. His view of our role as a nation is an extension of his own view as a person: it is all about what is good for me. It appeals to a simplistic, tribalistic and anachronistic way of thinking that will certainly make us less secure, not more. And he is getting support because we are hard wired and have not yet fully emerged from the cave.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

539 aggregate has drunkard walked back into the 60s.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

There's the part where he has no idea where oil actually is:

The Iraqis he said “have among the largest oil reserves in the world, in the entire world”. Iraq is estimated to have the fifth biggest reserves, but the bulk of that oil is not under Isis’s control.

He thinks Iraq overran Saudi Arabia. He missed that whole Bush/war thing.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

He thinks Iraq overran Saudi Arabia. He missed that whole Bush/war thing.

His foreign policy is from the 1650s. Maybe his atlas is from then too.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

A good opinion piece on why Hillary isn't blowing Trump away.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

The Brits pick up on some cock-eyed story.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Oh, weird. You misspelled "meme" as "story." Seems to be a common typo among the right wing.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

If this video from earlier this week (to a union meeting that she was unable to attend in person) is a preview of her debate prep (demeanor and techniques) allow me a singular statement:

You can't out Trump Trump.

"Why aren't I 50 points ahead?" She's supposed to be the contemplative, measured one. If that shows up in the ring on Monday Night Fight Night she'll be in trouble. Let Trump be the angry, Khrushchev 'shoe on the podium', ranter.

[BassAle]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

I'll just leave this here for Brent

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

A good opinion piece on why Hillary isn't blowing Trump away.

Yeah, she's blowing it. And looking at the polls this morning Colorado is in play now. He may pull this off.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

A good opinion piece on why Hillary isn't blowing Trump away.

From the link:

Beyond not wanting her opponent to be president, I have my reasons for supporting Clinton – and they begin with Supreme Court nominations – but I can’t think of three positive reasons why the average voter would support Clinton.

Wow, that's from someone who plans to vote for her? That's harsh.