U.S. Elections 2016: It's Not A Lie, If YOU Believe It

[Lockjaw of House Boltagon]

1 hour ago, Kindly Old Man said:

either that or something everyone fervently swears they did to the secret police

*Shudders* I love our Supreme Cheeto!

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think this Clinton's pneumonia episode is a good thing. For better or worse, she's dominating the news cycle with the speculation on her health, she's bringing the issue of Drumpf's own health to the foreground and eclipsing things like his speech with Kraven the Hunter Ivanka, she's letting Obama go into full-attack mode, and as Kellyanne Goebbels said, as long as Hillary remains out of the public eye, the election looks more like a referendum on Trump, which could be a good thing. 

[Martell Spy]

New York attorney general opens 'inquiry' into Trump Foundation
"We have been concerned that the Trump Foundation may have engaged in some impropriety," Eric Schneiderman says.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/new-york-attorney-general-opens-inquiry-into-trump-foundation-228125

[The Mance]

41 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Even Wikipedia's Barack Obama's citizenship conspiracy theory page paints the Hillary campaign in '08 as the source of the birther conspiracy. 

No, it doesn't...

anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship

Bolded mine.  Note "supporters", not "campaign" or "staff" or "current democrat party candidate"

Also,

There is no record that Clinton herself or anyone within her campaign ever advanced the charge that Obama was not born in the United States. A review by our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org reported that no journalist who investigated this ever found a connection to anyone in the Clinton organization.

[Tijgy]

4 hours ago, Mudguard said:

That same polling data shows that about 1/3 of Clinton's supporters are racists and/or bigots.  Yeah, 1/3 is less than 1/2, but it's still a depressingly large percentage.  It's not really a distinction that I would be proud of.

And you can actually wonder if they asked all relevant questions. Did they ask for example questions regarding some bigotry people have against white people? It doesn't really look like it. 

 

[Altherion]

4 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

And you can actually wonder if they asked all relevant questions. Did they ask for example questions regarding some bigotry people have against white people? It doesn't really look like it.

No. In the US, it would be extremely unusual for a poll to study bigotry or discrimination on the basis of race by minorities against white people, on the basis of gender by women against men, etc. Likewise, discrimination by the government, corporations and social institutions is acceptable when it is against white people (in favor of non-Asian minorities), against men (in favor of women), etc. -- but not vice versa. When the laws and social customs around this were established, this was mostly irrelevant as minorities were generally far from positions where they could do harm to white people by discriminating against them and white people were sufficiently well-off that institutional discrimination had a very limited impact on them. Today, definitely the latter (and, in a few limited instances, possibly also the former) is no longer true... but the laws and customs have ossified and, at the moment, it is still taboo for most politicians to seriously discuss discrimination against white people. Trump is exceptional for an American presidential candidate in that he does not ostracize supporters who do this unless they're well and truly racist and the media calls him on it.

[all swedes are racist]

Ahahahahahhahahahahah

First of all, no. The law (as I understand it; not a lawyer) is pretty damn clear that discrimination based on race, gender, (or any protected class) is not okay. (Sure, google one of those few isolated incidents, still doesn't even close to stacking up historically or statistically)

but go ahead, show us some serious, widespread, entrenched harm done to white people (good luck at a granular level, but I'm really looking for impact on the Caucasian demographic as a whole) as a direct (or close enough) impact of anti-white discrimination. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

12 hours ago, Notone said:

The problem with that approach is, it will keep that non-issue in the news. "How sick is she really?" "What is she hiding?" etc.

What did it get Obama to release his birth certificate? He further marginalized that birther movement, and exposed it as what it was. A loony conspiracy theory driven by a racist agenda. And he at least did not need to waste any energy on that issue during his campaign against Romney.

Yes, the birther movement was so marginalised that the principal birther is now the Republican party candidate for President.

Is there another presidential election I missed, one in which Trump and his running mate Orly Tatz promised they will find out the truth behind Obama's birth certificate?

Because the one I witnessed had that racist orange pony perform another trick. He promised mass deportations and ridiculous wall at the Mexican Border. It's both loony, so I can see where your confusion might come from.

 

9 hours ago, mormont said:

But focusing on a female candidate's health while giving the male candidate a pass is, without a doubt, sexist. 

Again, is there another election/event I missed, in which the male candidate fainted during a public appearence? If not, can we apply sexism to sexism, and not water it down so that every attack/criticism of Hillary is sexist? Words have meanings as you are hopefully aware.

 

9 hours ago, mormont said:

Clinton has released her tax returns, as well as an actual, genuine medical report, so yeah, she has the moral high ground. Trump has promised to provide more health info, which, if it's genuine, will be a step forward: but this is Trump. Another feeble lie is as likely as the truth.

So Clinton has the morale high ground on Trump. And she can still safely and assuredly point out, that Trump had not released his tax returns. *shrug*

Is there another straw man you like to set up?

[Tijgy]

I was even not talking about any form of institutional racism. I was talking about the feelings of individual supporters (which were the subject of the poll). 

I am not really sure how you can claim some people from the BLM Movement are not a little bigoted towards white people. There are videos of some people attacking random white people just because they are white. This is a form of racism. 

Bigotry does exist everywhere in every community of the world. 

In my country there is a form of bigotry towards my (language) community (some time ago a French speaking politician said the Flemish "tarnished" the capital because there was a non-peaceful protest against islamic terrorism - except for the fact a the half of those people were actually French-speaking ).  

And I also admit there is a form of bigotry from my (language) community towards the French-speaking community, f.e. laziness, ...  

Those things always go in two ways. 

[Altherion]

15 minutes ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

First of all, no. The law (as I understand it; not a lawyer) is pretty damn clear that discrimination based on race, gender, (or any protected class) is not okay. (Sure, google one of those few isolated incidents, still doesn't even close to stacking up historically or statistically)

but go ahead, show us some serious, widespread, entrenched harm done to white people (good luck at a granular level, but I'm really looking for impact on the Caucasian demographic as a whole) as a direct (or close enough) impact of anti-white discrimination.

This is not really the right thread for this topic, but your understanding of the law is incomplete. Discrimination in favor of certain minorities is perfectly acceptable and has been widely practiced by the government, universities and corporations. You may be more familiar with it under the name of "affirmative action." The harm it does is obvious: in every endeavor which is effectively a zero-sum game (e.g. college admissions), the minorities benefiting from this discrimination have a significant advantage over everyone else (i.e. in a zero-sum context, discrimination in favor of those minorities is necessarily against white people and Asian-Americans).

[mormont]

11 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Only if the gender is the cause, though, right? Correlation =/= causation, especially with numbers this small. Not great with the assumption. I suppose it's possible, but without anything more I see lots of room for 'doubt'. It's much more likely IMO that it's just that Trump threw it out there, among his myriad of gibberish, and events/Clinton played into his hand on this one.

  There's a long history of sabotaging political figures with rumours of ill health, and it has never so far as I've heard had anything to do with gender. Because 1/2 people in this case is female is no reason to ascribe it as the only variable. 

What is the cause, then? When Trump says that Clinton 'just doesn't look Presidential', what does he mean by that? When he compares his health to hers using masculine-coded language (eg referring to his superior 'physical stamina', despite being older than she is and presenting no specific evidence of his physical fitness), is he not evoking gender stereotypes? And why did he 'throw it out there' in the first place and why did it get traction even before this incident, if not because of those same stereotypes?

Trump, like any bully, knows what he's doing. He latches onto weaknesses, and he sees being female as a weakness. (Just ask Carly Fiorina.) He didn't just randomly alight on this topic. 90% of his campaign is based on gender: specifically, his gender, and his masculinity. He plays to masculine stereotypes literally all the time: strength, pride, power, dominance, even his actual penis size. He disparages emotion, feminism, and women's rights: the only times he speaks approvingly of women are about their looks. His attacks on Clinton are coded towards the fact that she's a woman and therefore 'weak'. This is no exception.

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

Not being honest and trustworthy. Which of these strikes you as more honest and trustworthy:

1) Telling people "No comment" or "We will let you know soon" and then releasing the detailed statement a few hours later.

2) Misleading people via equivocations and/or lies and then releasing the detailed statement a few hours later.

It's true that there would have been some fallout either way, but I'm fairly confident that they made it worse.

I've answered that point, and the answer is that 1 is more damaging, and it's not even close. When people have already decided that they can't trust what you say, creating space for a conspiracy theory is just stupid.

6 hours ago, mcbigski said:

If by principal you mean initial, then the first birther is actually the current Democrat party candidate. 

I don't. I'm afraid I have no idea why you would think I did.

2 hours ago, Notone said:

Is there another presidential election I missed, one in which Trump and his running mate Orly Tatz promised they will find out the truth behind Obama's birth certificate?

You're aware that Trump has publicly asserted that he already knows the truth, and that it is that the certificate is fake? And that during this campaign, whenever he's been asked, he has repeatedly refused to disavow that opinion? That's what's going on in this election.

[Guess who's back]

So after the new DNC leak you guys still support crooked Hillary? lmao @ buying political appointments. 

[mormont]

5 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

So after the new DNC leak you guys still support crooked Hillary?

Are you suggesting Trump isn't crooked?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Guess who's back said:

So after the new DNC leak you guys still support crooked Hillary? lmao @ buying political appointments. 

You do realize using Trump's naming conventions in discussing Sec. Clinton just weakens any possible pursuasive power in your post?

[Lockjaw of House Boltagon]

1 hour ago, Guess who's back said:

So after the new DNC leak you guys still support crooked Hillary? lmao @ buying political appointments. 

Let me put it this way: I would support a literal monkey or a dog or pretty much any kind of animal over Trump. I would vote for a person in a vegetative state before I vote for Trump. I would vote for like lichen or moss before I vote for Trump. I would vote for like an actual turd before I vote for Trump. I would vote for Voldemort or Doctor Doom before I vote for Trump. I would in all honesty get up and drive to the nearest voting center on election day and vote for Kim Kardashian if it means one less vote for Trump.

Clear enough for you?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I'd vote for Ted Cruz before I voted for Trump.

[Boris the Blade]

2 hours ago, Guess who's back said:

So after the new DNC leak you guys still support crooked Hillary? lmao @ buying political appointments. 

Lmao at you ignoring just how crooked Trump is. Anyone that uses crooked Hiliary is on par with jackasses that still use sheeple. 

[aceluby]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

This is not really the right thread for this topic, but your understanding of the law is incomplete. Discrimination in favor of certain minorities is perfectly acceptable and has been widely practiced by the government, universities and corporations. You may be more familiar with it under the name of "affirmative action." The harm it does is obvious: in every endeavor which is effectively a zero-sum game (e.g. college admissions), the minorities benefiting from this discrimination have a significant advantage over everyone else (i.e. in a zero-sum context, discrimination in favor of those minorities is necessarily against white people and Asian-Americans).

This is truly next level ridiculousness.  They didn't create these programs just because.  

What you're actually complaining about is that white, male privilege isn't going as far as the good 'ol days and framing it as 'harm', instead of what it actually is: policies to deal with the systemic discrimination of women and minorities.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Lyin' Ned said:

Let me put it this way: I would support a literal monkey or a dog or pretty much any kind of animal over Trump. I would vote for a person in a vegetative state before I vote for Trump. I would vote for like lichen or moss before I vote for Trump. I would vote for like an actual turd before I vote for Trump. I would vote for Voldemort or Doctor Doom before I vote for Trump. I would in all honesty get up and drive to the nearest voting center on election day and vote for Kim Kardashian if it means one less vote for Trump.

Clear enough for you?

I'll put you down as a "don't know."

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Mudguard said:

That same polling data shows that about 1/3 of Clinton's supporters are racists and/or bigots.  Yeah, 1/3 is less than 1/2, but it's still a depressingly large percentage.  It's not really a distinction that I would be proud of.

Nobody denies that there are Democrats who hold bigoted views. The difference is that Democratic leaders chastise these people while Republican leaders court them. Clinton is calling bigots deplorables while Trump and Pence are calling bigots proud Americans. The difference cannot be more stark. 

[Ice Queen]

On 9/13/2016 at 11:54 AM, Tywin et al. said:

The problem with this is he can just throw her missing emails right back in her face and put the ball back in her court. And this gets to Hillary's greatest weakness. Her history of lacking transparency enables Trump to not be transparent either.

She could be as transparent as crystal and again, it wouldn't matter. They'd still say she had something to hide.