U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Is he trying to look like a Hitler analog?  Who is running his social media. That was incredibly stupid.

 

Yeah, the problem is I honestly don't think it was a mistake. I wish it was. He continues all sorts of bullshit like this, long after he has 100 percent of America's racists in the bag. I'm not sure if he's stupid enough to think this is helping his campaign or if he just honestly believes this stuff and loves having a platform to vent it. Perhaps the platform is his main goal here, not even winning.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

 

Yeah, the problem is I honestly don't think it was a mistake. I wish it was. He continues all sorts of bullshit like this, long after he has 100 percent of America's racists in the bag. I'm not sure if he's stupid enough to think this is helping his campaign or if he just honestly believes this stuff and loves having a platform to vent it. Perhaps the platform is his main goal here, not even winning.

Let's face it, as long as the Republican candidate is white 100% of racists are either voting for him/her or they are voting to the right of him/her. And I don't think the right of Republican racist vote matters one bit in the outcome of a presidential election.

[maarsen]

As ever, malice is so difficult to distinguish from stupidity.

[ThinkerX]

And because it is otherwise unlikely to be brought up on this site today...

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-interviews-hillary-clinton-for-more-than-3-hours-in-email-probe/ar-AAhUx9V?ocid=msnclassic

Clinton interviewed for 3.5 hours Saturday by the FBI, investigation drawing to a close.

[ThinkerX]

Five myths about class in the USA:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/five-myths-about-class-in-america/ar-AAhRGBv?ocid=msnclassic

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

And because it is otherwise unlikely to be brought up on this site today...

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-interviews-hillary-clinton-for-more-than-3-hours-in-email-probe/ar-AAhUx9V?ocid=msnclassic

Clinton interviewed for 3.5 hours Saturday by the FBI, investigation drawing to a close.

It was brought up yesterday. Ya know, when it happened.

Not that there's a lot of news about it one way or another. She voluntarily gave the interview, it'll complete in the next couple of weeks, and then you can find another horrible alt-right conspiracy theory to panic about. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Interesting about the 5th myth. But I think that's mostly focusing on economic oppression. The USA still has a significant racial divide on things like sentencing I believe. And of course since a lager proportion of African Americans and Latinos occupy the poorer demographics those groups are more economically oppressed. it's just not deliberately racists. Merely a vestige and persistence of a racially oppressed past.

[Kalbear]

Ask Trayvon Martin if class oppression is as bad as racial oppression.

[Jace, Extat]

On 7/4/2016 at 0:06 AM, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Ask Trayvon Martin if class oppression is as bad as racial oppression.

I would, but the guy who murdered him has an awesome Ebay sale.

[ThinkerX]

50 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

It was brought up yesterday. Ya know, when it happened.

Not that there's a lot of news about it one way or another. She voluntarily gave the interview, it'll complete in the next couple of weeks, and then you can find another horrible alt-right conspiracy theory to panic about. 

Apologies. Must have missed that.

 

As to panic, don't you find it worthy of concern that the defacto democratic candidate for POTUS is the target of an FBI investigation of the sort that has sunk careers in the past?  And that this investigation wraps up about the same time (give or take) as the convention? 

 

Do not interpret this as support for Trump.  His issues, if anything, are far more severe than those facing Clinton.

 

What bugs me is that our esteemed political process is so broken these two tainted candidates were the best  the parties could come up with.  I find that pathetic and dangerous.  The accompanying polarization, evident in many posts on this site, read almost like the prelude to some sort of screwed up civil war.

[The Anti-Targ]

If you ask the question "What is it that keeps a poor white man in the USA down?" and then "What is it that keeps a poor black man in the USA down?" the answers will have a lot of similarities, but there will also be significant differences.

[The Marquis de Leech]

31 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

What bugs me is that our esteemed political process is so broken these two tainted candidates were the best  the parties could come up with. 

No, these were the two candidates that a majority of primary voters wanted. If they wanted someone else, they'd have voted for someone else.

[ThinkerX]

28 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

No, these were the two candidates that a majority of primary voters wanted. If they wanted someone else, they'd have voted for someone else.

Primary voters are party voters, hence, the parties choice.

And Clinton was the overly favored democratic candidate from the very start, despite her taint.

And sad to say, most of the republican contenders belonged in prison, not on the campaign trail. 

[Kalbear]

I think that Clinton is flawed.

I thought and still think Obama is flawed.

Honestly, the only difference between now and before is that we have access to so much easy info. Kennedy would never have made it past his countless big name affairs, as an example. FDRs wife would have been outed as a lesbian.

Clinton is being investigated by the FBI and will almost certainly not be indicted. Her mistake was not deleting everything like Jeb Bush did. 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Apologies. Must have missed that.

 

As to panic, don't you find it worthy of concern that the defacto democratic candidate for POTUS is the target of an FBI investigation of the sort that has sunk careers in the past?  And that this investigation wraps up about the same time (give or take) as the convention? 

Republicans have spent like more than hundred million dollars of taxpayer money investigating the clintons for alleged wrongdoing for thirty years. Hillary Clinton has never been found guilty by any of the hundreds of investigations and hundreds of millions of dollars spent trying to find something to pin on her. If anything, being the most investigated politician in history and having always been found innocent in all investigations ought to make people trust her MORE, not suspect her more.

Any other politician, including her husband who did have scandals uncovered by the hunts, when subjected to the insane scrutiny the clintons have been inflicted with would have all sorts of scandals and misdeeds uncovered by these McCarthyite hunting sprees. But Hillary Clinton, quite atypically for a politician, has come through demonstrably squeaky clean. 

 

[Fez]

7 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

What bugs me is that our esteemed political process is so broken these two tainted candidates were the best  the parties could come up with.  I find that pathetic and dangerous.  The accompanying polarization, evident in many posts on this site, read almost like the prelude to some sort of screwed up civil war.

Clinton is basically promising to be Obama's third term (there are some policy differences, especially on foreign policy, but she down plays them), and Obama is far and away the most popular politician among Democrats so it makes sense that message would work for them. And in fact, while Obama is incredibly unpopular among Republicans, he's doing pretty well among independents. In recent months his approval rating has been back over 50% for the first time in a while, and that's really good for a President in their 8th year of office. 

Promising to be Obama's third term is a popular, winning message and if Clinton had a different last name (and was a man), but was otherwise basically the same person (right down to having an email scandal), she'd be an overwhelming favorite in almost all circumstances (instead of being the overwhelming favorite because of who her opponent is). 

Point is, it makes perfect sense that the Democratic party ended up with '4 more years, but with a different name!' as its main campaign message (along with, 'that other nominee is actually legitimately dangerous to the country') and its not a sign of a broken system on their part.

[Jaxom 1974]

15 hours ago, maarsen said:

As ever, malice is so difficult to distinguish from stupidity.

A friend of mine, whom I've generally consider an intelligent person, is a Trump supporter.  That he insisted that the star within that ad can't be an actual Star of David, as "the points were not actually connected by visible lines" truly has me reevaluating said friendship.  

[ThinkerX]

4 hours ago, Fez said:

Clinton is basically promising to be Obama's third term (there are some policy differences, especially on foreign policy, but she down plays them), and Obama is far and away the most popular politician among Democrats so it makes sense that message would work for them. And in fact, while Obama is incredibly unpopular among Republicans, he's doing pretty well among independents. In recent months his approval rating has been back over 50% for the first time in a while, and that's really good for a President in their 8th year of office. 

Promising to be Obama's third term is a popular, winning message and if Clinton had a different last name (and was a man), but was otherwise basically the same person (right down to having an email scandal), she'd be an overwhelming favorite in almost all circumstances (instead of being the overwhelming favorite because of who her opponent is). 

Point is, it makes perfect sense that the Democratic party ended up with '4 more years, but with a different name!' as its main campaign message (along with, 'that other nominee is actually legitimately dangerous to the country') and its not a sign of a broken system on their part.

I remember similar statements about Bush I and Reagan.  Back then, I predicted Bush I would be a one term president because there was no way he keep his 'no new taxes' pledge.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

37 minutes ago, Nacho 1974 said:

A friend of mine, whom I've generally consider an intelligent person, is a Trump supporter.  That he insisted that the star within that ad can't be an actual Star of David, as "the points were not actually connected by visible lines" truly has me reevaluating said friendship.  

I have a first cousin who is a big Trump supporter I posted an article on the star of David meme on his feed.  His response is to ignore it.  Shocking.

[maarsen]

We don't get to choose our family, do we Scot?