The 2016 Elections

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby hamlet » Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:25 am

Jnyusa wrote:
Hamlet wrote:Labeling opposing viewpoints as nonsense


Hamlet, I'm not going to pretend that Bill O'Reilly makes sense just to appease someone else's sense of self-worth. How could lying about an evaluation like that possibly help anyone?

It is frustration that makes the left contemptuous, just as it is frustration that makes the right violent. Both those responses fall on the unimaginative end of their respective political spectra. Their subtext is: I've given up (on you). If we want to re-establish communication, never mind respect, we have to do better than that. We have to commit some effort to finding the right questions to ask.


And, again, I remind you I'm not talking about calling things Bill O'Reilly says nonsense, I'm talking about badgering folks here who AREN'T QUOTING HIM or talking about him and who couldn't give a fart in a gale's care about what he's saying with him. It'd be a bit like me responding to everything you ever say with "well, yeah? but Michael Moore said this . . ."

EDIT: You're not actually conversing or interacting with what's said here, but elsewhere. Strawman doesn't even cover that.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Jnyusa » Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:14 pm

Hamlet wrote:I remind you I'm not talking about calling things Bill O'Reilly says nonsense, I'm talking about badgering folks here


Hamlet, I haven't spoken to folks here in months and months.

Mindardil gave a long list of public functionaries who say nonsense things, well, racist things. And your response and Storyteller's response was that we don't treat such people with enough respect. Right you are, I don't respect them.

If you identify with their message and take personal offense when they are called on their b.s., then I don't respect you either. You have to decide what you stand for, just as the rest of us do.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby hamlet » Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:20 pm

Jnyusa wrote:
Hamlet wrote:I remind you I'm not talking about calling things Bill O'Reilly says nonsense, I'm talking about badgering folks here


Hamlet, I haven't spoken to folks here in months and months.

Mindardil gave a long list of public functionaries who say nonsense things, well, racist things. And your response and Storyteller's response was that we don't treat such people with enough respect. Right you are, I don't respect them.

If you identify with their message and take personal offense when they are called on their b.s., then I don't respect you either. You have to decide what you stand for, just as the rest of us do.


*sigh*

Given your past performance, I'm not sure why I would have bothered.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby The Heretic » Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:46 pm

Minardil wrote:When you think that Donald Trump is just “telling it like it is” when he claims that most Mexicans are rapists and criminals, you might be a little bit racist.

How about providing the exact quote from Trump.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Jnyusa » Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:58 pm

From Trump's speech announcing his candidacy at Trump Tower, NYC, June 16, 2015:

"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."

More from the same speech and others at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b

But there's a more important question than the question of what Donald Trump thinks, and that's the question of what you think. What means do you think would be effective in reducing the flow of illegal immigrants, if you do believe that they are bad for the economy? What factors contribute to illegal immigration and which of them are within our power to change, meaning within the power of the US government to change?
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Storyteller » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:54 pm

Jnyusa wrote:People who have better information have an obligation to disseminate it as best they can, imo. The alternative is to let those who are mired in quicksand drown in it.

Some information IS better than other information. Some information has been critically tested, is verifiable without reference to the tooth fairy, and has positive results that are demonstrable and desirable to most people. You can reject that information if that is your preference, but you should at least be given that choice. You should at least be allowed to know what the alternatives are. That's the difference between a substantive conversation and b.s.

All true, all misses the point. Any evangelist will follow that exact line of reasoning.

Aside from the fact that one needs to actually have better information in the first place, there's also a question of whether those other people disagreeing with you don't, by any chance, knows something that the enlightened savior doesn't. The enlightened saviors tend to have blind spots the size of a small continent in their "better information".

I don't know how familiar you are with the history of Jewish enlightenment, but back in the 1840-s, a learned German Jew named Max Lilienthal fancied himself an enlightened savior of the Jews of Russia. So he went to Russia to try and popularize a European Enlightenment-based school model that would replace the traditional "cheder". He came to cities within the Pale of Settlement and challenged local community leaders, those boorish people stuck in their old religious ways, to a debate he was sure to win. He had better information - having a good education is better than not having one. Hard to argue with that, right?

It so happened, however, that the people whom he sought to educate had their own brains, and told Lilienthal in no uncertain terms that his ideas were useless at best, dangerous at worst under the given circumstances. A population whose rights were severely restricted had little practical use for better education. In conditions where the Tzarist government enforced quotas on how many Jews were allowed into secondary education, with additional limits on particularly desired professions such as law, all of it on top of restrictions on where Jews could live and what civil rights they had, introducing European-style schools across the community would do little to advance the Jews' status but would very likely exacerbate the community's predicament by increasing the frustration among young Jews and hostility of surrounding population.

As Lilienthal didn't bother to understand the people he was preaching to and acted on assumption that his opponents simply didn't know what was good for them, he did what spurned saviors often do - he sought to force the truth upon them. He went to the Tzar's Minister of National Enlightenment, Count Sergey Uvarov - a hardcore anti-Semite like most Russian nationalists at the time. Uvarov quickly understood that the most likely effect of Lilienthal's plan would've been to further the Russian Tzar's plan for destruction of the Jews - "a third will die, a third will emigrate and the rest will convert and assimilate". Lilienthal soon returned to Brest as an emissary of the Russian imperial government, backed by the brand new law forcing an establishment of European-style Jewish schools, with lavish funding for the project and with imperial gendarmerie to suppress opposition. This time, the boorish Russian Jews had no choice but to listen... and silently pray for the uninvited savior and his goons to leave town so that they could try and clean up the mess he left behind. Collaboration with Uvarov eventually backfired on Lilienthal, who hastily fled to the USA, having achieved nothing. Enlightement ideas were spread among Russian Jews by people born and raised in the Pale of Settlement, people who actually knew what they were dealing with.

My point, should you choose to miss it once again, is that it never hurts to actually understand why your opponents think the way they do, and respect their intelligence and ability to observe the world around them. Even if - and it's an "if" in need of proof - you are right and they're wrong in broad terms, they might still be right and you may still be disastrously wrong.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Jnyusa » Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:02 am

If information is truly informative, and not just propagandistic, there will be supporting evidence. That's the difference between good, better, best.

But I'm not going to respond to any more of these predictable attacks. If I'm going to carve away a few minutes for posting here, it will be only for the purpose of discussing the third option: how to reach hostile and propagandized people with genuine information. Ordinary people, not paid shills like O'Reilly.

The question applies as much to the left as to the right. Believe me, I've seen the face and the consequences of self-righteous idiocy on the left too. I have to teach the rest of today but I'll bring an example tomorrow if time allows.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Storyteller » Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:25 pm

Jnyusa wrote:If information is truly informative, and not just propagandistic, there will be supporting evidence. That's the difference between good, better, best.

Supporting evidence may not be universal in application. Enlightenment worked for German Jews great during Lilienthal's time.

But I'm not going to respond to any more of these predictable attacks. If I'm going to carve away a few minutes for posting here, it will be only for the purpose of discussing the third option: how to reach hostile and propagandized people with genuine information. Ordinary people, not paid shills like O'Reilly.

Anyone working in customer service-related jobs has an experience-proven answer to that question :)
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby LleuLlewGyffes » Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:59 pm

I'm a little bit puzzled by Storyteller's contribution here. Are the 2016 elections for the Knesset?
LleuLlewGyffes
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:24 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Storyteller » Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:54 am

LleuLlewGyffes wrote:I'm a little bit puzzled by Storyteller's contribution here. Are the 2016 elections for the Knesset?

So stay puzzled :)
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Minardil » Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:35 pm

Yeah, if the Republicans on the thread are arguing whether or not it is racist of Mr Trump to claim that most immigrants from Mexico are "rapists" and "criminals", then I think they're just proving the point that racism is a problem within the party.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby hamlet » Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:43 pm

Minardil wrote:Yeah, if the Republicans on the thread are arguing whether or not it is racist of Mr Trump to claim that most immigrants from Mexico are "rapists" and "criminals", then I think they're just proving the point that racism is a problem within the party.


What Republicans?

For that matter, I'm not sure I've seen anybody arguing that Trump is OK claiming that Mexicans are rapists and criminals and presumably a few are ok.

Or are we again conflating any and all conservative thought with the absolute imaginings you have about those who disagree with you?
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Jnyusa » Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:26 pm

Jnyusa wrote:I'll bring an example tomorrow if time allows


It took five days and not one but I'll steal a few minutes here. This is just an example of what I mean by accurate information. It's not about facticity as such, because facts change as circumstances change. It's about having the tools to sort fact from fiction in any particular circumstance. So the example that I had in mind was something that I try to drill into my students, to de-propagandize them.

Economists can be awful snobs because our discipline is so mathematized compared to the other social scientists. We have a tendency to insist that we know the 'right' choice, the 'rational' choice in any situation. But the tools of economic theory don't really tell you what the right choice is; that's not what they are designed to do. What they are designed to do is to tell you how much you will have to give up in other things to get the thing that you think you want. Then you decide whether the cost is worth it. Sometimes your answer is yes, it's worth it, and sometimes the answer is no, it's not worth it, but the economist can't possibly know in advance what the answer will be or should be. And we lie about this, rather often, I'm afraid.

Storyteller, you said that sometimes a people's wrong answer is more right than my right answer. What you're saying s that they are considering benefits (or costs) that I have overlooked, and they know better, therefore, what solutions will work for them. This can easily be the case, of course. So if one is trying to devise policy, one has to listen. But that implies that the other side is also stating what they really want - not lying, not fudging, no concealing hidden agendae, and so on. And that process of teasing out the fullness of considerations that other people are taking into account can be quite a lengthy process. And sometimes there are consequences to a chosen course of action that no one anticipated.

None of this invalidates the fact that people have choices, that the role of educators (or pundits, whatever) should be to make sure that as many choices as possible get presented and discussed, and that some approaches to information are better than others in that they begin from the best available evidence.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Minardil » Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:02 pm

hamlet wrote:
Minardil wrote:Yeah, if the Republicans on the thread are arguing whether or not it is racist of Mr Trump to claim that most immigrants from Mexico are "rapists" and "criminals", then I think they're just proving the point that racism is a problem within the party.


What Republicans?

For that matter, I'm not sure I've seen anybody arguing that Trump is OK claiming that Mexicans are rapists and criminals and presumably a few are ok.

Or are we again conflating any and all conservative thought with the absolute imaginings you have about those who disagree with you?





Hamlet, I have never argued that legitimate policy criticisms are “racist”, but I HAVE pointed out several specific examples of commentary that I DO feel to be racist, which I have listed above, and which you seem to agree represent actual racism. BUT, every time I point out any of these comments, YOU are the one who attempts to claim that anyone who disagrees with the President on SUBSTANCE is being labelled as a racist. So as far as I can tell, I’M not “conflating” racism with conservatism in general, YOU are. I do NOT claim that Conservatism is inherently racist at all, but I DO claim that today’s Conservative Movement contains within it a strain of deeply, even virulently, racist sentiment, and furthermore I claim that this strain is growing STRONGER, partly because of the echo-chamber effect of today’s climate, wherein conservatives largely only talk to other conservatives, so their most radical ideas become both more amplifed and more accepted and “normalized” within conservative circles, but also because conservatives like YOU seem to be only too eager to deflect LEGITIMATE concerns when they are raised and pretend that racism isn’t an issue.

So, just to be clear AGAIN, when Trump says that all (or even just “most” Mexican immigrants are “rapists” and “criminals”, or when someone like Right Wing firebrand Ted Nugent says the President is a “chimp” who should be lynched, or any of the other examples I listed above, I think THAT stuff is pretty damn racist. If YOU say that you disagree with the Individual Mandate portion of “Obamacare” or that you were opposed to the President’s plan to allow the Bush Era tax cuts to ellapse as originally planned when they were enacted, I don’t think THESE criticisms are remotely racist. They might be WRONG, but not racist. So, perhaps YOU should stop conflating my legitimate criticsms of genuinely racist remarks with criticisms of legitimate policy differences.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby hamlet » Mon Feb 08, 2016 8:42 am

You specified in your comment that you were speaking about "Republicans on the thread" were talking about racism. Which ones? Who here is doing that?

Who here is forgiving Trump his racism?
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Jnyusa » Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:03 pm

You don't have to forgive Donald Trump's racism, you just have to prefer it to the other options being offered and you've automatically placed yourself on the spectrum of opinion. Not you in particular but anyone in general ... priorities are revealed by what one considers least-worst.

But I came into this thread to say something different, which is that the 2016 elections are this evening enormously more important than they were this morning.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby portia » Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:38 am

Trump embodies an attitude that has persisted in this country from the earliest days:: nativism. Various groups have been subjected to it, depending on who was the last group that came in : Italians; catholics, germans, Jews, Irish, African-Americans and now Mexicans, and it looks like, Middle Easterners. There are always a lot of "reasons" for the nativism, but its recurrence again and again is telling. It is persistent and consistent. It usually diminishes as the new people come into the mainstream, but it "pops" up in odd places.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby hamlet » Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:35 am

It should be noted that Trump is, at least in part, being rejected by the Republicans/Conservatives (I do separate those two groups out) in some part. While I did not catch the debate myself, the news reported that the last time, Trump drew extensive boo's and such from the audience. It seems that the joke that is that man is finally running its course.

One hopes.

Personally, I'm becoming rather fond of Bernie Sanders, though I'll admit I'm not wholly familiar with his platform. At this stage in the game, I try not to get too into it since they're all going to float away like detritus when the tide goes out and leave only some of the trash behind for us to vote on later.

Still, it's a shame that there isn't a really good candidate to become excited over in a positive way again this cycle. Hell, even Mr. Christie was somebody better than pretty much everybody left. Say what you will about the man, at least he was willing to reach across the aisle at the most appropriate moments even if he is a blowhard and a jerk.

I may again write in "Benjamina Ficus" on the ballot and just go away.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Hobbit_Guy » Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:29 pm

hamlet wrote:It should be noted that Trump is, at least in part, being rejected by the Republicans/Conservatives (I do separate those two groups out) in some part. While I did not catch the debate myself, the news reported that the last time, Trump drew extensive boo's and such from the audience. It seems that the joke that is that man is finally running its course.


Trump, of course, responded by claiming that the audience was stacked with Bush supporters / lobbyists / donors / special interests, because the crowd was booing him (and sometimes Cruz), and cheering for Bush (and sometimes Rubio and Kasich). Looking around, it seems that the audience wasn't chosen by a lottery system. Tickets for 600 out of the ~1600 seats were given to the campaigns, and 100 were given to CBS / Google / the Peace Center. 917 were handed out to party officials (state, national, and local), who handed them out as they saw fit.
User avatar
Hobbit_Guy
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 4:10 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby portia » Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:32 am

It appears that there are some gimmerings of non-Trump support. He is doing much better than I had hoped, but for different reasons. But things are still developing. If people can support a man who lies at least every other time he speaks, with comments such as "he tells it like it is," then who knows what can happen.

However, there are forces that will become involved when the primaries are over, in the GOP, and we will see how far they get.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Jnyusa » Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:58 pm

This tiff between Donald Trump and the Pope has got to be the goofiest wild card we've seen so far in a Presidential election. Not enough to alienate all the Hispanic voters in the country, Trump is determined to alienate every single Catholic? And I suspect that in saying the Vatican is the ultimate trophy of ISIS he convinced a lot of Moslems of his stupidity as well.

American politics is like a game show. A really bad game show.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby RoseMorninStar » Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:10 am

I'd like someone to ask what 'Make America Great Again' is supposed to mean. Trump feels strongly enough about the phrase that he's trademarked it and owns all of the merchandising rights. What era/ideology is he harking back to? Please, by all means, we're listening. Do tell.

I read an article recently (that I wish I could find) about how empathy in the US has undergone a sharp decline in the last 40 years. 'Telling it like it is' has given approval for all sorts of hatred, anger, bigotry.

I know several Catholics who consider themselves in very good standing who are angry with the Pope for suggesting that anyone who does not want a wall is 'not a Christian'. Once people have let their ugly side fly, it's not easy to reign it back in. Faux news has assured them it's OK. The Donald could shoot someone on 5th avenue in New York and not lose a voter. He's that convinced of the mindset of his sheeple. Not a compliment.. and they can't see that.
User avatar
RoseMorninStar
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12795
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:34 pm
Location: North Shire
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby hamlet » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:55 am

While I am loathe to imply overtly racist ideology or leanings to any one person - even including most of the other Republican candidates whom I assume are actually less racist and more playing to a perceived voting group - Trump is the most difficult. Things he's said ring so racist that it's almost like a Family Guy joke about what Pepperige Farms remembers: a time when "certain people" couldn't vote, etc. I find it difficult to wrap my head around the guy without resorting to caricatures of the worst stereotypes of conservatism.

Not even the other Republicans are even in the same league of stupid that he is, which is kind of a neat trick, really, making Mr. Cruz look rational.

I still can't shake this feeling that, on some level, he's either doing this whole thing to sell books or merely as some elaborate scheme and show rather than seriously running for office.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby portia » Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:33 am

I have to say that Rubio's comment that Trump is a "con Man" is as accurate as we are likely to get. BUT he has bought his own cool aide.

He is so predictable. He can be manipulated by an insult or a flattering comment. He cannot answer a simple question
The Democrats are storing up clips to use in the general election, in case the GOP doesn't wakeup.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Minardil » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:29 am

So, yeah, Trump. Let’s talk about him. I mean, everyone else is. ALL THE TIME.

When anyone last commented on this threat, the topic was “Racism”, and the perception shared by many that some politicians had a habit of making remarks that could fairly be described as “overtly racist”. Now, one of those politicians has clinched the Republican nomination for the Presidency, and he has doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled down on the type of remarks which concerned many of us back in February.

My questions are:
1. Do you agree that Mr. Trump’s comments about Judge Curiel are “racist”?
2. If you agree that these comments are racist, are you troubled by the inability of some Republican leaders to directly criticize these remarks as Racist?
3. Newt Gingrich rather forcefully condemned these remarks and called them “racist”, but Mitch McConnell refused to answer whether or not HE thought the remarks were racist, and when repeatedly asked that directly question, he just said “I don’t agree” with Trump’s remarks. Who was right, Newt or Mitch?
4. If you agree that the remarks are Racist, and if you agree that Trump has been making similar remarks throughout his campaign, what, if anything, do you think this says about the mindset of the “base” of the Republican Party, given that he (and his mouth) has not been elected by that base to lead the party in the coming election?
5. If you DO NOT agree that these and other remarks are racist, do you find them at all troubling? If so, on what level?
6. Do you agree or disagree with some commentators (including prominent Republicans) that quite ASIDE from any concerns about “racism”, Trump’s comments are inappropriate, given the separation of powers inherent in our Constitution?
7. What comments, if any, would you care to make about Trump’s candidacy in general?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Cerin » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:00 pm

I don't think Trump's comments about the judge were racist. He isn't impugning the judge's abilities or integrity because the judge is Hispanic; he's saying that his (Trump's) views regarding Mexico represent an inherent conflict of interest for an Hispanic judge.

I think, as with many of his remarks, what this exposes is a profound lack of understanding (in this case, of what it means to be a jurist), but not an underlying racist attitude. I have found the imprecise, quasi-hysterical reaction to Trump's statements to be extremely problematic throughout the campaign. Rather than examining the foundational lack of understanding and personality disorders that his remarks reveal, which probably would have disqualified him early on, this obsessive distraction over his supposed racism has allowed him not only to skate through the process, but has undoubtedly increased his popularity with the racist element of the voting public. A calm, sober dissection of Trump statements on their merits would have been far better, imo, than the knee-jerk 'oh my! RACIST! RACIST!' reaction to everything he says.

Overall, I'd have to say that the reaction to Trump, which I see as consistently off the mark and over the top, causes me more concern than Trump himself.
User avatar
Cerin
Mariner

 
Posts: 7350
Joined: Tue May 02, 2000 12:52 am
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby hamlet » Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:25 am

It's actually just a little tough, objectively, to say that Trump's comment about the judge is racist. On the one hand, yeah, it's blindingly racist in a history of blindingly racist things. On the other, given what he's said about Mexicans, immigrants as a whole, etc., it's actually not at all an entirely unfair statement that a member of a group he's spent a lot of time and money criticizing roundly might not be objective in judging him.

In fact, the argument could be made that Trump himself isn't racist, but that a lot of what he's doing is pandering to a lot of very real anger (misguided and entirely legitimate) throughout the country and doing it VERY well. If true, it says a HUGE amount about us as a whole, but not necessarily in the ways you think. After all, there are a lot of minority and, believe it or not, Hispanic supporters of Trump. It's kind of hard to explain that away if your understanding of him is that he's just a big dumb racist with a tribble on his head.

His mass appeal, I think, is more easily explained via the latter: he's tapping into a lot of disenfranchisement and anger, especially directed at so called Conservative leaders who essentially have completely disconnected from the idea of Fiscal Conservativism rather than Social Conservativism. Our most recent crop of Republican candidates, for the most part, were an absolute joke ranging from Mr. Trump himself all the way to virtual theocrat Cruz. So, yeah, actually, suddenly Trump becomes a lot more viable if you take a hard look at the others who were, if anything, more irrational than he is if more polished.

On the other hand, it looks like the presumptive Democrat nominee at this point is going to be Clinton unless there's some sort of big upset, which I highly doubt. She's a needless liar, but aren't they all, and I flat out don't like her even a little. Not to mention the framing of her victory in the primary yesterday as if it were a huge historic moment truly irks me. Her qualifications do not, at all, involve her possession of or lack of external genetalia, so I don't see the need to actually bring it up by anybody. Of course, she's been bashed by some quarters for being a woman, so there's that.


What's happening now is something I predicted a while ago, though not here. Essentially, as I see it, the entire election cycle thus far is a massive knee-jerk reaction by EVERYBODY to the past two administrations. Everybody's fantastically angry, overcome by fear, and acting out of ignorance, but especially angry. It's going to be a rather nasty election unless something happens at the conventions that replaces the presumptive nominees (which I don't think is actually possible, but I bow to those with better knowledge) and we're going to have a really ugly 4-8 years.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby Arassuil » Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:13 pm

... so the conventions are over, and the party nominees are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Ok USA, who will you vote for? If none of the above, what third party will you vote for? Or, will you not vote in 3 months time?
Inquiring minds outside the USA want to know. :)
User avatar
Arassuil
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:10 pm
Location: Somewhere in Eriador
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby wilko185 » Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:22 pm

Arassuil wrote:... so the conventions are over, and the party nominees are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Ok USA, who will you vote for? If none of the above, what third party will you vote for? Or, will you not vote in 3 months time?
Inquiring minds outside the USA want to know. :)

I know things are quiet here lately, but perhaps the silence on this issue is due to the conduct of the respective candidates, which leaves nothing to seriously debate?
User avatar
wilko185
Mariner

 
Posts: 8306
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2001 2:10 pm
Top

Re: The 2016 Elections

Postby hamlet » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:38 am

wilko185 wrote:
Arassuil wrote:... so the conventions are over, and the party nominees are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Ok USA, who will you vote for? If none of the above, what third party will you vote for? Or, will you not vote in 3 months time?
Inquiring minds outside the USA want to know. :)

I know things are quiet here lately, but perhaps the silence on this issue is due to the conduct of the respective candidates, which leaves nothing to seriously debate?


Entirely possible. While watching television entirely too much lately, I see at least three or four Clinton ads an hour and they are uniformly attack ads with no other substance to them. It's difficult to tell just what she actually stands for from the ads other than "not Trump."

Meanwhile, I've seen nothing from Trump at all except his speeches, which I actively do my best to avoid. We live in a fairly Trump intense neighborhood and it's not pleasant at the moment.

This entire election is relatively anomalous compared to the recent past. I suspect that it will be instructive at least in terms of just what a "centrist" opinion actually is and what the general opinion of the nation is. We're in for a bit of an ugly show.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron