You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 10:41:54 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: In your honest opinion, who do you think has the best chance of becoming POTUS?  (Read 27166 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Question MarkTopic starter

Debates are welcome, but this is principally a straight-forward poll.  I encourage you to share, elaborate upon, and explain your opinion in the comments.

This is meant to be a civil thread.  Please consider all opinions valid, and please refrain from digressions and personal attacks.

Personally, I support Bernie Sanders, and I also believe he has the best shot at POTUS despite his losses on Super Tuesday.  Sanders had the deck stacked against him these last couple of weeks, with numerous primaries and caucuses in Clinton heavy states.  However, most of the remaining states are either contested or firmly in Sanders' favor, plus Clinton is facing all sorts of accusations regarding her emails and conduct.  Finally, Sanders beats all the GOP candidates in national polls, even Trump.  If Sanders makes it to the General Election, I believe it'll be a landslide in his favor, no matter who his opponent is.

Feel free to disagree and counter.  I welcome earnest and honest debate.

Offline elone

I have to agree completely with the Bernie pick.

However, I have a feeling that the Democratic party will not allow it to happen. The party elite are firmly behind Clinton as we see from the superdelegate count. Unless the FBI and Justice Department (the Obama Justice Department that is, so it will not happen)  indict her she may sail on despite her obvious flaws. (where are the transcripts among others)

Trump is having the same problems with the Republican party as Bernie is having with the Democrats. The old school does not want him in because many of his views align closely with some of the democrats. The Republican populus however are sick of the same old sh*t.

In a Clinton/Trump race, I think Trump might actually win.

In a Sanders/Trump race, Bernie wins in a cakewalk.

Most interesting election ever!
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 10:09:54 AM by elone »

Offline Cycle

However, most of the remaining states are either contested or firmly in Sanders' favor

Source please?

Offline TaintedAndDelish


I absolutely hate her guts, but I think Hillary is going to get it given the way the Republican party is working against itself. If it weren't for that, I would have said Trump. I'm predicting that Trump will end up running as an Independent (either willingly or reluctantly) and fail as a result of losing dedicated Republican voters.

Offline Question MarkTopic starter

Source please?

You got me: that statement was mostly secondhand informed, but the trend in the primaries/elections so far is that Hillary tends to do a bit better in conservative states, Sanders in liberal states.  Clinton is still ahead overall, but I'd say her path forward is more dangerous than Sanders' (GOP smear campaigns, email controversy, etc.).

I've dug up the RCP link with all of the polls, and a quick scan shows lots of Clintons, but many of these are also from the conservative states she won on Super Tuesday.  I don't have the time to give it a more detailed look at the moment.

Offline Cycle

Thank you.  I agree that the Sander-Clinton contest is not over, regardless of what the cable news talking heads want us to believe.  But right now, it looks like Clinton's chances are better than Sanders.  According to the bookies, to win $11 you need to bet $10 on Clinton and $5 on Sanders.  :-)

But in a face-to-face between Trump and Clinton/Sanders?  I honestly think it is a coin flip.  There are a lot of people who love Trump and they aren't always covered by the media.  Look at the turnouts so far:  the Republican numbers are breaking records and rivaling what Obama brought out in 2008.  That's going to make Trump formidable in November.

Offline consortium11

Finally, Sanders beats all the GOP candidates in national polls, even Trump.

Just one word of caution on this.

Clinton's had the Republicans (and some people from her own side) trying to discredit her for well over a decade now with it having ramped up over the past eight years. Almost every "scandal" has been dug up, dragged out, thrown away and then rediscovered a couple of times over. Every type of attack has been tried and while they may not have really succeeded, some has stuck.

Sanders has none of that. He hasn't been subjected to attack ads, he hasn't had to deal with every public word and act of his being studied for any perceived fault, he hasn't had to face a serious, organised and sustained attack against him beyond the odd throw away one-liner. What happens when every Spanish language TV network starts showing adverts of his previous anti-immigrant position (not enough to get people to vote against him, but possibly enough to get them to stay at home)? What happens when his votes in favor of keeping Guantanamo Bay open are repeatedly talked about? Or how he supported the 1994 crime bill that that increased penalties for repeat offenders and added funding to build more prisons (Clinton's support for which and "super predator" quote are both being used to attack her right now)? What happens when his votes which eased restrictions on Wall Street get more publicity? What happens when the poor state of the VA office (when he was the head of the Veterans Affairs Committee) gets wider attention? What happens when his vote against the Victims of Rape Health Protection Act (which allowed rape victims to know the HIV status of their attackers) gets national headlines? What happens when clips of Sanders complaining about the number of deodorant and sneaker brands go viral? What happens when his anti-war credentials get challenged by the fact he supported the 1999 operations in Kosovo (supported them enough that one of his advisers quit in protest) and when people protested this he had them arrested? That he supported motions that gave appropriations to both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and a resolution which said “Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.”? What happens when his pro-Israel and anti-Palestine positions are more widely noted... hardly an unusual or unpopular position in US politics but one that goes directly against what many of his supporters believe?

Now, that's not to say that those attacks would be fair... or even substantially true in a couple of cases... but they'll come. And we haven't seen Sanders deal with such sustained attacks or how the polls will respond to them. Likewise, it's also not to say that they'd be the deathblow to him and he wouldn't win... but until we see him put under the sort of pressure and attacks that a Presidential candidate is then I think looking at the polls is something that should be done cautiously.

Offline consortium11

Just as a follow up to the above post.

Sanders made a gaff...



Bernie's getting hit by three sides on this. The first is the obvious one; saying that white people don't know what it's like to be poor. The second is the implication that can be taken from what he said that all black people are poor and live in the ghetto (or that they can only experience racism if they're poor and live in the ghetto). The third is the continuation of the previous "Sanders is racist" position that takes the fact that he tends to see racism as an aspect of economic inequality as a racist viewpoint that ignores racism as a distinct and separate thing.

Are the criticisms fair? I'd say no. The latter two require you to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get there (and ignore Sanders long history of civil rights protests) and while the first in undoubtedly inaccurate I think it's basically him phrasing an answer (very) badly; he was putting the events as a collective, not as singular separate acts. I don't think anyone could seriously claim that Sanders, who grew up relatively poor himself, doesn't think that any white people know what it's like to be poor.

But that hasn't stopped the media running with it.

That was a large aspect of my point above. So far Sanders hasn't really had to deal with people picking at his words to find something they can be upset by; the biggest complaint from his campaign has been too little media coverage, not too much. Now they're on the other side of the divide and feeling the sort of pressure that Hillary and Trump do every time they open their mouths. Those two deal with it in different ways; Hillary by being very, very careful with what she says (one of the main reasons that politicians all seem to speak in the same manner) and Trump by just brazenly blasting through it, utterly confident that nothing will stick. Sanders? He hasn't had to do that yet and it will be interesting to see how he and his side handle it. And if he were to get the nomination, this is what he would face after every press conference, ever rally, every time he has a microphone in his hand or someone has a phone camera pointed at him when he speaks.

As above I take this controversy about as seriously as I do the "Trump won't disavow David Duke" thing mentioned in the other Election thread; the media got their soundbite, got their angle and ran with it even though to do so meant they had to avoid all context and past actions by the person in question. But just like Trump saying Mexican immigrants are rapists... which only works if you remove all context from what he actually said... there's a chance this will stick for a while despite being an almost entirely manufactured "controversy".

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Clinton's had the Republicans (and some people from her own side) trying to discredit her for well over a decade now with it having ramped up over the past eight years. Almost every "scandal" has been dug up, dragged out, thrown away and then rediscovered a couple of times over. Every type of attack has been tried and while they may not have really succeeded, some has stuck.

Actually, this has been going on since Bill Clinton was elected and decided to put Hilary in charge of healthcare reform during his presidency and probably from the very beginning of her political career.  The so-called email scandal is just the latest iteration.

Offline theLeslie

As above I take this controversy about as seriously as I do the "Trump won't disavow David Duke" thing mentioned in the other Election thread; the media got their soundbite, got their angle and ran with it even though to do so meant they had to avoid all context and past actions by the person in question. But just like Trump saying Mexican immigrants are rapists... which only works if you remove all context from what he actually said... there's a chance this will stick for a while despite being an almost entirely manufactured "controversy".

I am inclined to disagree completely.  Even with the correct context of the moment he called then rapists, what he said was a broad generalization, completely incorrect, and outright offensive.  He was speaking on the matter of illegal immigrants, and said that Mexico was sending over their worst element, words which seem to imply some master plan on Mexico's part to deport their violent criminals across the border.  He said that the illegal immigrants, without spending a moment to specify if he only meant some of them, were over all criminals, drug dealers, and rapists.  He called them "their worst element", referring to the people of Mexico.  There is no hidden context he was speaking on, he was not only mentioning a slim minority of the immigrants.  He did not specify at all, and instead painted all illegal immigrants from Mexico has violent offenders. 

There is simply no defending that line.  Likewise, who needs to spend more than half a second or engage more than 10 brain cells to instantly condemn David Duke?  He heard the name, he heard the name KKK, and it still took him a second to think about it?  This man will immediately, with knee jerk reaction, vilify broad swathes of just about any group, yet balked, paused, hesitated for even a second, to offer the same kindness to the likes of the KKK. 

No context is missed.  No context is needed.  There is no context where it is in any way acceptable to say or do these things.

I will agree that Bernie Sanders made a slight gaff by implying that White People don't know what Poverty is.  That is demonstrably false, however there is a context in which it is better understood, and that is the ratio of white people in extreme poverty compared to the over all population of white people, and the ratio of black people in extreme poverty compared to the over all population of black people.  The two are in no way equal. 

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
I got the feeling, watching Trump in that interview, that when he was asked about disavowing David Duke the wasn't trying to remember who David Duke and the KKK are but how to form his response to get the most mileage out of his remarks.

Of course, if I'm wrong and he was trying to recall who David Duke and the KKK are and truly can't recall meeting the man I'm worried about the mental stability of someone running for the presidency and having memory problems.  His people had to have touched base with him regarding such a hot button topic and he still said he had no frame of reference.

Offline theLeslie

I got the feeling, watching Trump in that interview, that when he was asked about disavowing David Duke the wasn't trying to remember who David Duke and the KKK are but how to form his response to get the most mileage out of his remarks.

Of course, if I'm wrong and he was trying to recall who David Duke and the KKK are and truly can't recall meeting the man I'm worried about the mental stability of someone running for the presidency and having memory problems.  His people had to have touched base with him regarding such a hot button topic and he still said he had no frame of reference.

Especially when a video surfaced from several years ago with Trump denouncing David Duke when Trump wasn't even in the political spotlight.

Offline TaintedAndDelish


Regarding this bit about David Duke, I was under the impression that this was an attempt to force Trump to alienate voters. If he disavowed him up front, then Duke might have used his influence to shift like minded voters to another candidate ( ie. by withdrawing his endorsement or speaking against Trump). Likewise, accepting him would cause Trump to lose voters who oppose him. Either way, the question was damaging and required either a diplomatic answer or some willingness to lose votes. Whether you agree with Duke or not, a vote is a vote.

Also, this question was asked right before the Super Tuesday primaries in which seven or so SOUTHERN states were going to vote all at once. These states have a LOT of history with slavery and the KKK.

Offline consortium11

I am inclined to disagree completely.  Even with the correct context of the moment he called then rapists, what he said was a broad generalization, completely incorrect, and outright offensive.  He was speaking on the matter of illegal immigrants, and said that Mexico was sending over their worst element, words which seem to imply some master plan on Mexico's part to deport their violent criminals across the border.  He said that the illegal immigrants, without spending a moment to specify if he only meant some of them, were over all criminals, drug dealers, and rapists.  He called them "their worst element", referring to the people of Mexico.  There is no hidden context he was speaking on, he was not only mentioning a slim minority of the immigrants.  He did not specify at all, and instead painted all illegal immigrants from Mexico has violent offenders.

The full quote is this:

Quote
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Unless you're suggesting that his argument is that the rapists are good people, he's clearly drawing a distinction between those who come over using illegal means but are otherwise "good people" and those who come over using illegal means and are rapists, drug runners and criminals... which it's not particularly hard to find examples of.

There is simply no defending that line.  Likewise, who needs to spend more than half a second or engage more than 10 brain cells to instantly condemn David Duke?  He heard the name, he heard the name KKK, and it still took him a second to think about it?  This man will immediately, with knee jerk reaction, vilify broad swathes of just about any group, yet balked, paused, hesitated for even a second, to offer the same kindness to the likes of the KKK. 

No context is missed.  No context is needed.  There is no context where it is in any way acceptable to say or do these things.

But he did instantly condemn and disavow David Duke. When told about Duke's sort-of endorsement for the first time at a press conference days before he instantly disavowed the support. Then the media kept asking him about it and days later got one soundbite that wasn't unequivocal condemnation then decided that that was the only one they'd run with. Do you think it was be fair and reasonable media coverage for the press to constantly use Sander's "white people don't know what it's like to the poor" to discuss his views on poverty?

I will agree that Bernie Sanders made a slight gaff by implying that White People don't know what Poverty is.  That is demonstrably false, however there is a context in which it is better understood, and that is the ratio of white people in extreme poverty compared to the over all population of white people, and the ratio of black people in extreme poverty compared to the over all population of black people.  The two are in no way equal.

1) That's not the context that Sanders used the quote in, or clarified it to after the event.

2) That doesn't touch, and arguably doubles down, on the criticism that certain black people made of his comments, criticizing them for presenting all black people as living in poverty and in the ghetto and seemingly saying that they couldn't understand racism unless they did. The exact same logic used to present Trump as supposedly saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists would hold Sanders as saying that all black people are poor and live in the ghetto when applied to Sanders words.

3) You're doing exactly what I criticized the media for; quite happy to remove all context from Trump's words for the worst possible implication but also happy to add context to a candidate you do like's words to make them more palatable and not a big deal. It's a trend you see fairly often within the Sanders supporting camp in that they'll rage about how the media reports on Sanders and twists things (the whole "Bernie-bros" for example) but then take what they say as gospel when it comes to other candidates.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
I don't know.  He either refuses the backing of a bigoted David Duke or he doesn't.  The time of day, day of the week or today's special on the menu doesn't matter.  What matters is your own integrity when it comes to what you are going to carry into the Oval Office if you are elected.

Offline Parlabane

OK, I'm a Brit, so my perspective on this is from several thousand miles away, but I think Clinton has the best chance by a long way.

First, she's going to be the Democratic nominee. Sanders has run much better than anyone expected (and probably has a few others wishing they'd taken a chance against Clinton) but he's still over three hundred delegates behind even before Superdelegates are factored in. To overcome that he has to win every remaining primary by something like 60-40. He'll get some attention in the next couple of weeks when there are some good states for him, but then New York votes in the middle of April, and the five states that vote the week after that are all closed primaries, so he can't rely on the support of independent voters who've helped him in others.

Even if he was the nominee, I agree with consortium11's initial post - he's not come under any significant attack from the Republicans, but if he was the Democratic nominee, pretty much every ad break from here to November would be reminding voters that he's a socialist on top of anything he may or may not have voted for. 'Bernie Sanders wants to turn the US into Cuba' or similar would be the refrain, and IMO he'd get wiped out in November, given that the American electorate have never shown much desire to vote for anyone calling themselves a socialist. (Whether that's a good or bad thing is another matter)

So, Clinton's the nominee, and likely gets at least some time to present herself as Presidential and above the fray while the Republicans keep heading towards a convention that will give Cleveland another 'mistake on the lake' for the history books. If the Republican nominee is Trump or Cruz, she's going to look like the calm and reasoned one while her opponent goes way off the deep end, and if it's anyone else she's the choice of the people, he's the candidate of the smoke-filled room. She's already well-known, with all her negatives out in public, whoever the Republicans stand is going to have months of having everything they've done picked over and thrown at them.

I don't think it's guaranteed that she'll win, but she seems to me to have the most going for her at this point in the race. Others have a chance, but it requires a lot of luck to go their way if they're going to beat her.

Offline theLeslie

But he did instantly condemn and disavow David Duke.

No, he didn't  For all my searching, I can not find a single sound byte of him disavowing Duke.  Even when he did -eventually- stand up in front of cameras and disavow, he did so with extreme disdain and sarcasm, as if he shouldn't even have to say it.  I don't think most would have to say it, but with Trump, and his excessive, divisive words, he needed too.  When first presented with the information he said he had a bad ear piece.  Then he said he didn't know much about Duke.  Then he said he'd need to look into organizations.  The sad point is, the only organization named was the KKK, the question was a simple hypothetical, asking if he would refuse the support of organizations based on white supremacy.  There is nothing to research there, it's a very simple question, and one that should be met with an immediate YES!  He did condemn Duke long ago, but that before this political season, and before he was relying on tons of closeted racists to fuel his political fires.  The simple fact that so many white power groups are supporting him should speak volumes on his policies towards minorities.  If you've got a link to him instantly disavowing Duke, please do provide it.

Unless you're suggesting that his argument is that the rapists are good people, he's clearly drawing a distinction between those who come over using illegal means but are otherwise "good people" and those who come over using illegal means and are rapists, drug runners and criminals... which it's not particularly hard to find examples of.

He did say "Some, I assume, are good people".  Some.  Some..  after listing off three other groups and heavily implying that those are the majority.  If he believed that most of the people being "sent"(as if it's something the Mexican government is doing) over were good people, he would have lead with that, and then mentioned that SOME of the immigrants were bad people.  He did not, he did quite the opposite.  It's as if the possibility of some of them actually being half decent human beings was nothing more than an after thought too him.

1) That's not the context that Sanders used the quote in, or clarified it to after the event.

2) That doesn't touch, and arguably doubles down, on the criticism that certain black people made of his comments, criticizing them for presenting all black people as living in poverty and in the ghetto and seemingly saying that they couldn't understand racism unless they did. The exact same logic used to present Trump as supposedly saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists would hold Sanders as saying that all black people are poor and live in the ghetto when applied to Sanders words.

3) You're doing exactly what I criticized the media for; quite happy to remove all context from Trump's words for the worst possible implication but also happy to add context to a candidate you do like's words to make them more palatable and not a big deal. It's a trend you see fairly often within the Sanders supporting camp in that they'll rage about how the media reports on Sanders and twists things (the whole "Bernie-bros" for example) but then take what they say as gospel when it comes to other candidates.

1) I didn't say it was the context that Sander's used, though at the time I did believe it was what he meant to say.  He has since clarified the context in his own words.

2) You lost me on this one.  I'm talking statistics, so it's hard not to lump, say, "all dogs" into one group, when your statistic is talking about all the dogs.  You do realize you're doing some world class word manipulation here, right?  I'd applaud you if what you were suggesting wasn't so damaging.  The Black Experience in the United States is something that does indeed apply to all black people, no matter their income level.  There are people who hate them all, regardless of any factor, so long as their skin color is dark.  It is in no way a stretch to lump together entire races, when the issue at hand... is entire races.  You sort HAVE to lump them together, just to talk about that particular topic.  Sanders could have handled it better, but what he said was in no way comparable to Trumps slandering of Mexican immigrants.  These two topics are in no way related.  One was the answer to a question "Where are your racial blind spots", a question that asks where you might not understand the feelings, thoughts, and life experiences of an entire group of people.  The other wasn't even an answer to a question.  It was trump sensationalizing immigration as a topic, and villainizing an entire population for the sake of polarization and popularity.

To give a better example here, these comments would be a lot more similar if when asked his question, Sanders started off his response with "Well, you know, Black people are doing drugs, and they're stealing, and they're rapists, but I assume some of them are good people".  He didn't even come CLOSE to saying that.  Your comparison is flawed.

3)  Explain what context I removed. 



« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 08:43:01 PM by theLeslie »

Offline consortium11

No, he didn't  For all my searching, I can not find a single sound byte of him disavowing Duke.

If you've got a link to him instantly disavowing Duke, please do provide it.

This (it's a video embedded in one of Trump's tweets if that's a concern) is the first time the Duke endorsement was put to Trump. He instantly disavows. He then got asked about it for two days straight which eventually led to the CNN interview which a controversial soundbite could be taken from and thus the rush of "Trump refuses to disavow David Duke!" stories... which only work once you remove the context of him spending the two previous days disavowing.

1) I didn't say it was the context that Sander's used, though at the time I did believe it was what he meant to say.  He has since clarified the context in his own words.

Which is basically my point. You're willing to put forward a context for Sanders' words (and as we both agree, not the context he later suggested he was using) which presents it in a positive light and means we shouldn't take them at face value; face value being that Sanders doesn't think white people understand what it's like to be poor. You're not willing to do the same for Trump. To use a political term, you're willing to spin for Sanders but not willing to do the same for someone you oppose.

2) You lost me on this one.  I'm talking statistics, so it's hard not to lump, say, "all dogs" into one group, when your statistic is talking about all the dogs.  You do realize you're doing some world class word manipulation here, right?

I'm not doing it; I made clear in my first post on the topic that I thought such arguments required a lot of mental gymnastics and to ignore Sanders' own history of activism. But articles like this did do it. Do I think those criticisms are unfair? Absolutely. But remember my starting point; Sanders hasn't had to deal with people paying enough attention to him that his every word will get picked apart, shorn of context and presented in the worst possible light. Clinton and Trump have. Once people did start paying more detailed attention to his words, suddenly a story like this appears and Sanders is being presented as racist against both black and white people in the mainstream media

To give a better example here, these comments would be a lot more similar if when asked his question, Sanders started off his response with "Well, you know, Black people are doing drugs, and they're stealing, and they're rapists, but I assume some of them are good people".  He didn't even come CLOSE to saying that.  Your comparison is flawed.

Here's your criticism of Trump's words from above:

He did say "Some, I assume, are good people".  Some.  Some..  after listing off three other groups and heavily implying that those are the majority.  If he believed that most of the people being "sent"(as if it's something the Mexican government is doing) over were good people, he would have lead with that, and then mentioned that SOME of the immigrants were bad people.  He did not, he did quite the opposite.  It's as if the possibility of some of them actually being half decent human beings was nothing more than an after thought too him.

Sanders listed off three conditions, in a similar way to how Trump listed three groups; living in the ghetto, being poor and getting hassled/dragged out of cars by police officers, outright stating that white people don't know what those things are like and heavily implying that all black people do. If he believed that not all black people live in the ghetto or are poor then he would have mentioned that and then mentioned that some black people live in the ghetto and/or are poor. He did not, he did quite the opposite.

See what I did there?

As above, I don't think those arguments against Sanders are valid. But the same logic you use to attack Trump is the same logic used to fuel those arguments.

3)  Explain what context I removed.

Trump disavowing David Duke as soon as he was told Duke was supporting him, then repeating it for two days prior to the "scandal" breaking. The points made in my previous post about his comments on undocumented immigrants, especially as outlined above when the same approach is taken with Sanders words. In fact, picking up on your comments in the previous posts about demographics and ratios, one could also add that while the figures are somewhat difficult to piece together (as state and local prisons don't tend to record information on inmates immigration status or lack thereof) it appears that undocumented/illegal immigrants commit crimes (excluding immigration offenses as that would obviously horribly distort the figures) at a higher ratio than the population as a whole (which is directly opposite legal immigrants who tend to commit less crimes then you'd expect demographically)... and as the black population living in poverty at a higher ratio than the white population was suggested by you as a better context to understand Sanders' comments in, then surely the fact that undocumented/illegal immigrants appear to commit crimes at a higher rate then either the population as a whole or legal immigrants should be used a better context to understand Trump's words?

Offline theLeslie

This (it's a video embedded in one of Trump's tweets if that's a concern) is the first time the Duke endorsement was put to Trump. He instantly
Sanders listed off three conditions, in a similar way to how Trump listed three groups; living in the ghetto, being poor and getting hassled/dragged out of cars by police officers, outright stating that white people don't know what those things are like and heavily implying that all black people do. If he believed that not all black people live in the ghetto or are poor then he would have mentioned that and then mentioned that some black people live in the ghetto and/or are poor. He did not, he did quite the opposite.

There is still a huge difference here.  What Sanders said actually does apply the vast majority of black people in the United States.  What Trump said only applies to a slim minority of Mexican immigrants.  Sanders never said white people don't know what it's like to be poor.  When Sanders clarified his stance on the matter, which I believe only made the situation worse, he said that he intended to say that people don't call where poor white people live as Ghettos.  Which is true, around here we call them Trailer Parks.  Regrettably he had a good chance here to make a very valid point, but he stumbled over himself on the wording and ended up looking more like Joe Biden than MLK.  Trump, on the other hand, meant what he said, and he said what he meant.  The difference as I see it, and I see it as such a blinding differences the two lines can not ever be compared to each other, is as I stated previously.  Sanders is generalizing a group of people based on a very large majority, while Trump is doing so based on only a slim minority.


This (it's a video embedded in one of Trump's tweets if that's a concern) is the first time the Duke endorsement was put to Trump. He instantly disavows. He then got asked about it for two days straight which eventually led to the CNN interview which a controversial soundbite could be taken from and thus the rush of "Trump refuses to disavow David Duke!" stories... which only work once you remove the context of him spending the two previous days disavowing.
Alright, you made me dig deeper.  I've been trying to find a timeline of the Trump/Duke thing, and I was finally able to do so.  As it turns out, Trump did indeed instantly disavow Duke, but it makes no sense.  The verbiage used, and the emotions put forth in his dismissal of Duke as a supporter comes off as patronizing and forced.  The fact that he ends it with "okay?" is like him saying, "Look, I said the words can we drop this?", which is the context it was provided through almost all media sources.  Yes, Media sources have a bias, I am fully aware, but this was also originally displayed as something that happened -after- the snafu with him not disavowing Duke and the KKK over and over again.  I don't understand why he was unable to disavow duke the second time, and instead claimed to not know much about him.  It makes no sense when the videos are played back to back in the disavow first order, and they make perfect sense when played with his disavow coming second.  Honestly, this makes absolutely no sense to me now.  The timing of the two videos in the order the timeline seems to present them just doesn't make sense.

How can you disavow on 2/26, then claim ignorance and refuse to do so again on the 28th?  It just boggles the freaking mind. >.<

I will at least grant you this.  I was incorrect on the order.  He did indeed disavow him the day after Duke endorsed him, which is as close to instant as you can get in this case.

Which is basically my point. You're willing to put forward a context for Sanders' words (and as we both agree, not the context he later suggested he was using) which presents it in a positive light and means we shouldn't take them at face value; face value being that Sanders doesn't think white people understand what it's like to be poor. You're not willing to do the same for Trump. To use a political term, you're willing to spin for Sanders but not willing to do the same for someone you oppose.

It's not that I am not willing to put forth a context in which Trump's words don't come across as biased, hateful, and completely derogatory.  It's that I can not think of one.  If you can fit it into a context where it sounds better, I am happy to hear it.  I just don't think that saying "some are alright", is enough to put even the slightest bit of a positive spin on it.  I am also happy to admit to having a bias against Trump.  When he started talking about blocking entire religions from entering the country, and nationwide databases for all Muslims to be put it, and agreeing that making Muslims be marked in public was okay, he lost me.  Godwin's Law.. meh!


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
To be honest, despite being low income, I know that - as a white person - my experience is different than any other race's.  I could see that this past summer, through all the news articles.  I've been worried about keeping the lights and heat on.  I've been worried about keeping food on the table.  I've been worried about keeping the car running.  I've even been worried about losing the place I live (and actually did lose the place where I lived back in Ohio.)  Things are at least stable in that respect now.

But.

I've never worried about getting shot.  I've never worried about getting pulled over for a traffic violation and not coming home.  I've never worried about what would happen if the police happened to see my kid walking home from school at twilight.  I have the empathy to know that these are things that poor people who aren't white worry about, but I can't know that gut-twisting worry.

I wish to gods that they didn't have to know it either.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
The Donald has approached his candidacy from two directions - as a politician and as a businessman.  He's making all the moves a politician would by performing for the crowds in speeches, rallies and debates but he is also looking at this from a business point of view and doing what sells.  He is his own product and he doesn't care if it is a good product or not.  He only cares that people buy it.  So he makes the speeches and says the things his marketing people have told the voters want to hear.  The Donald makes the promises a politician makes and knows full well, as a businessman, he'll break a lot if not all of them and that he'll BS his way out of it if he's elected and fails.  He isn't stupid and I doubt that he's naive about what the voters want.  I seriously think his market research is faulty and he's making some mistakes.  If that isn't the case he has a screw loose and is operating on five cylinders instead of eight.  He would fall into the megalomaniac category and should he become a serious contender it would be advisable for the GOP to find a really really really good person to be his running mate.

Offline Renegade Vile

As long as it's not Clinton, I honestly don't care. That snake changes her opinion on the basis of polls even more than the average politician. She's flipflopped on just about every issue she's ever opened up about, with it falling in line with changes in public opinion a bit too much to simply be a 'change of heart'.

That being said, I see a lot of negative press flying Clinton's way too, so I think Bernie Sanders is likely to win if he is put against Trump.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
That being said, I see a lot of negative press flying Clinton's way too, so I think Bernie Sanders is likely to win if he is put against Trump.

The polls agree with you.  Last one I saw gave Bernie an 11 point lead over Trump.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
As long as it's not Clinton, I honestly don't care. That snake changes her opinion on the basis of polls even more than the average politician. She's flipflopped on just about every issue she's ever opened up about, with it falling in line with changes in public opinion a bit too much to simply be a 'change of heart'.

I've honestly never understood why this is a criticism.  "This person who wants to represent the will of the people changes what she says she'll do every time it turns out that such a course of action isn't in line with the will of the people."  Well...good?  Surely?

Offline Renegade Vile

I've honestly never understood why this is a criticism.  "This person who wants to represent the will of the people changes what she says she'll do every time it turns out that such a course of action isn't in line with the will of the people."  Well...good?  Surely?

Because she's disingenuous and only says these things to get elected. Once in office, a person without a spine will either get nothing done, or will then reveal what they truly think, which is unlikely to be what they were originally elected to do. Politicians are almost impossible to trust as it is without them not even standing by what they believe, which should be the whole point. Politicians are also elected so they can be trusted with making decisions the majority of people cannot or are unwilling to make, or lack the perspective and experience to make. She cannot be trusted to make these in line with what's best for the country when she is just going to listen to whatever whips people up towards a given opinion at a given time. She should represent the majority from a democracy, but she should try to convince that majority that HER views are the ones that will improve the nation and that she will represent those who follow that view. She should not just go with whatever gets her votes and then do nothing. Even Trump is a better candidate in that sense since he's batsh*t but he doesn't generally hide that he's batsh*t so you know where he stands.