DunderMifflin Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Literally no one has said Clinton can do no wrong. I literally never said "pox on both their houses" We both inaccurately quoted each other, not the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said: I think decentralising jobs that no longer need to be urbanised is one way of bettering the rural economy without demanding that people move into cities. To that end one of the best things that can be done for rural communities is good quality, reliable and affordable internet. If you have the internet you have access to the entire world, and that creates economic opportunities since you have a potential market of a few billion people. Word. 9 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Literally no one has said Clinton can do no wrong. I think the majority of Clinton-friendly posters have acknowledged she is too hawkish, too given to triangulation, too secretive, that she made significant mistakes in her tenure as SoS. But I think we just think that she is, on the balance, a reasonably competent Democrat who can be trusted on Supreme Court appointments and domestic economic and social welfare policies. Sometimes I find myself thinking she could turn out to be far better than reasonably competent. Sometimes. But on conspiracies, sometimes I find myself thinking that Trump is maybe descendent from a long line of Nazi sympathizers and is deliberately aiming to revive white nationalism, raised his children as white nationalists, etc. That probably counts as at least one person engaging in some crazy liberal conspiracy-theory thinking. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 4 hours ago, Lord Eddard said: Who needs any conspiracy theories when the Clinton Foundation's shady business practices are there for everyone to see? It's a brilliant scheme for personal enrichment and it made Bill and Hillary into multi-millionaires. What shady business practices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said: Sometimes I find myself thinking she could turn out to be far better than reasonably competent. Sometimes. But on conspiracies, sometimes I find myself thinking that Trump is maybe descendent from a long line of Nazi sympathizers and is deliberately aiming to revive white nationalism, raised his children as white nationalists, etc. That probably counts as at least one person engaging in some crazy liberal conspiracy-theory thinking. Maybe. His grandfather was Herr Drumpf aus Deutschland, just sayin'. Not all Americans of German descent are Nazi sympathisers of course, since my wife is an American of partly German descent and I'm pretty sure she isn't a Nazi sympathiser. But still Trump's apparent associations and rhetoric are not inconsistent with it. Probably is a crazy liberal conspiracy, but more of an 80% probability rather than 99.9% probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, BloodRider said: What shady business practices? The only credible claim of this I've seen is in Colin Powell's emails where he complains about their astronomical speaking fees, but I doubt he'd call it shady. And I don't see how any free-marketer could really raise this objection with any integrity. Like that article in the New Republic suggested, I think the Clintons' get dinged for being bougie upstarts who actually have to be concerned about tacky shit like making the kind of money we expect our ex-President patrician class to possess. It'll be interesting to see what the Obamas do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 28 minutes ago, Castel said: Mattress Girl? That UVA story? I'm blanking a bit too. We'll right hasn't had the presidency in nearly a decade so there not going to be exact equivalent. Also the last time the right had the presidency it was almost a completely different world as far as media and ability to push a narrative go. There was basically Fox News for the right and comedy news for the left. Ppl were just beginning to learn to use the internet for political purposes. Aside from generalities like you aren't likely to see the left in any significant way ever admit they incorrectly labeled someone as a racist. Things that come to mind from GWB time that are still held onto today. -Bush stole the election. -Bush started Iraq war because of daddy issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: Things that come to mind from GWB time that are still held onto today. -Bush stole the election. -Bush started Iraq war because of daddy issues. I'm not even going to go into how different those are from things like the birther movement (one is a reaction to an obviously broken election in Florida, the other just a criticism, not a conspiracy theory). Remember my stipulation: these theories need to be espoused by elected leaders. I am looking for direct evidence of differences between the parties, not their voters. Not media people or commentators. Because elected Republican leaders have advanced crazy and unproven facts to de-legitimize the very standing of their opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I believe elected Senators embraced Mattress Girl, but I don't know that her case was discredited as much as the UVA one. But I can't imagine anything approaching the birther case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 minute ago, Castel said: But I can't imagine anything approaching the birther case. Bush did 911 Admittedly not something you heard from high ranking lefters but it was strong enough to go mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 17, 2016 Author Share Posted October 17, 2016 20 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: Things that come to mind from GWB time that are still held onto today. -Bush stole the election. -Bush started Iraq war because of daddy issues. There were a fuckton of W ones. Predatorgate, WMDs, Email scandal, the U.S. attorney firings, Boxgate, 12 Billion in missing funds from the Iraqi Reconstruction, the list goes on and on. Thing is many of these weren't far-fetched conspiracies. Most of them were at least partially rooted in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 15 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: We'll right hasn't had the presidency in nearly a decade so there not going to be exact equivalent. Also the last time the right had the presidency it was almost a completely different world as far as media and ability to push a narrative go. There was basically Fox News for the right and comedy news for the left. Ppl were just beginning to learn to use the internet for political purposes. Aside from generalities like you aren't likely to see the left in any significant way ever admit they incorrectly labeled someone as a racist. Things that come to mind from GWB time that are still held onto today. -Bush stole the election. -Bush started Iraq war because of daddy issues. Has labelling someone a racist entered into an become entrenched in mainstream left thinking and rhetoric? Apologies and admissions of error are extremely rare in politics and are not at the same level as a nutty birther / Muslim claims which remain prevalent in right wing rhetoric. It took until just a month ago for Trump to publicly distance himself from birtherism. And he still thought it was a good thing to force Obama to publicly prove himself in a way that no previous president had been required. Does that mean if Obama had refused to play ball Trump would still be a birther? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Also there's a rich history of elected officials comparing Reps to nazis And it's my understanding that some members of Clinton's staff were fully on board with circulating rumors about Obamas citizenship. Not exactly an elected official but pretty close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Shryke said: Re: The firebombing in NC, the candidates tweets are exactly what you thought they would be: Clinton said the only reasonable and proper thing, Trump claims his opponent is a criminal. Call's Dems and Clinton supporters animals, whined about his sack of shit supporters being called deplorable. I wonder if the media will handle his words here the same way they handled Clinton using deplorable to describe Trump supporters. Oh, and notice his silence when those 3 domestic terrorists were arrested for their plan to blow up a mosque? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 17, 2016 Author Share Posted October 17, 2016 9 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Call's Dems and Clinton supporters animals, whined about his sack of shit supporters being called deplorable. Fuck all of them, fucking hypocritical shit stains. I wonder if the media will handle his words here the same way they handled Clinton using deplorable to describe Trump supporters. Except he's referring to specific folks who did something deplorable. Don't see an equivalency here. Had Hillary specifically pointed to say David Duke or the KKK and called them deplorable, there wouldn't have been an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 25 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: Also there's a rich history of elected officials comparing Reps to nazis And it's my understanding that some members of Clinton's staff were fully on board with circulating rumors about Obamas citizenship. Not exactly an elected official but pretty close. Elected officials comparing Republicans to Nazis: find some. Find a credible quote. And for fuck's sake, Bush being responsible for 9/11 was in no way mainstream. Nor was it ever trafficked by any Democratic politician. So why even bring it up? Throw something at the wall and hope it sticks and that no one notices that it's not a response to the question at hand? Find the evidence of any members of Clinton's staff being fully on board with circulating rumors about Obama's citizenship. The nearest I've heard of is one guy saying to a reporter, "While in Kenya, investigate his background" -- which is nothing like "spread rumors that Obama faked his birth certificate." Again, just a bunch of lame assertions with no evidence. Instead of backing up any assertions you make, you just sprout new ones. Maybe if you cloud the air with enough fumes, no one will notice you haven't actually proven anything or answerwed the question! It's very Trumpian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Except he's referring to specific folks who did something deplorable. Don't see an equivalency here. Had Hillary specifically pointed to say David Duke or the KKK and called them deplorable, there wouldn't have been an issue. He's referring to specific folks, however, the bombers of the office are this point unknowns, so his 'animals' comment is presumptuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 17, 2016 Author Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 minute ago, LongRider said: He's referring to specific folks, however, the bombers of the office are this point unknowns, so his 'animals' comment is presumptuous. A little bit, I suppose. The act itself is animalistic though, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Except he's referring to specific folks who did something deplorable. Don't see an equivalency here. Had Hillary specifically pointed to say David Duke or the KKK and called them deplorable, there wouldn't have been an issue. So supporting a bigot that is spouting his bigotry and lacing that into some of his policies is not deplorable? His supporters spewing racial slurs at his rallies or beating up protesters is not deplorable? His supporters chanting the shit they chant as his rallies isn't deplorable? Trump throws out an accusation and automatically assumes they are Clinton supporters, please don't even try to be an apologist for his fucking double standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 The point is he's currently made unproven claims and already decided guilt. See his comments on the Central Park 5. He's using very poor judgement folks. Not presidential. Sad. Also sets him for when the perps, if found and proven to have nothing to do with Clinton's campaign, to be able to bellow 'rigged!" same oh, same oh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 17, 2016 Author Share Posted October 17, 2016 Just now, Daniel Plainview said: So supporting a bigot that is spouting his bigotry and lacing that into some of his policies is not deplorable? His supporters spewing racial slurs at his rallies or beating up protesters is not deplorable? His supporters chanting the shit they chant as his rallies isn't deplorable? Yes, all those things are deplorable. Painting all his supporters (or even a significant percentage of them) with a broad brush in the manner that Hillary did was not smart. Even if there was some truth to it. What she should've said IMO, is let's look at some of the deplorable people and organizations that are supporting Donald Trump. Take David Duke for instance. Take Aryan Nations. Are these the sort of folks that you want to align yourself with? That sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.