Posting this here because I don't want to double post in the Hillary thread.
Clinton just went off on the Alt-Right in general and Trump in particular, pointing out Trump's repeated use of racism, sexism and conspiracy theories to unite his supporters. She also tears into Breitbart, Nigel Farage, Vladimir Putin and the international rise of fascism throughout the world recently.
The speech is huge so I'm not quoting the whole thing, but here's a sample. [full speech at the link]
From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia.
He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party.
His disregard for the values that make our country great is profoundly dangerous.
In just this past week, under the guise of “outreach” to African Americans, Trump has stood up in front of largely white audiences and described black communities in such insulting and ignorant terms:
“Poverty. Rejection. Horrible education. No housing. No homes. No ownership. Crime at levels nobody has seen." Right now," he said, "you walk down the street and get shot.”
Those are his words.
But when I hear them, I think to myself: How sad. Donald Trump misses so much.
He doesn’t see the success of black leaders in every field, the vibrancy of black-owned businesses, the strength of the black church.
He doesn’t see the excellence of historically black colleges and universities or the pride of black parents watching their children thrive. And he apparently didn't see Police Chief Brown on television after the murders of five of his officers conducting himself with such dignity. He certainly doesn’t have any solutions to take on the reality of systemic racism and create more equity and opportunity in communities of color and for every American.
It really does take a lot of nerve to ask people he’s ignored and mistreated for decades, “What do you have to lose?” Because the answer is: Everything.
Now, Trump’s lack of knowledge or experience or solutions would be bad enough.
But what he’s doing here is more sinister.
Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.
It’s a disturbing preview of what kind of president he’d be.
And that's what I want to make clear today:
A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military.
Ask yourself, if he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?
Donald Trump is a horrible, obvious con artist. I am disturbed at how easily he's brought bigotry to the mainstream and how quickly otherwise intelligent people, on this forum and otherwise, are eager to adopt his ugliness.
That said, it doesn't look like he's going to win. With 74 days before the election, he trails in almost all the swing states and, furthermore, Clinton has a sturdy lead in enough states to clinch 272 electoral votes even without those swing states she leads in.
Trump is going to lose. But it is a national humiliation that he got this far.
Trump topic=194 pages.
Hillary topic=13 pages.
There are going to be a lot of surprised/butthurt people come Nov. 9th.
Ooh! Ooh! I think I know how this game is played. Let me see if I've got it right:
Polls mean nothing.
Electoral college means nothing.
Fundraising means nothing.
Twitter followers means everything.
Subreddit size means everything.
Trump supporters think "If this gets one million likes, Donald Trump will be president!"
Do I win?
Public Mod Note
(osieorb18):
Warning for trolling.
After seeing this thing Trump did with his big announcement...he played the news stations like suckers. That's the kind of clever I'd feel safe about having as my Commander in Chief.
After seeing this thing Trump did with his big announcement...he played the news stations like suckers. That's the kind of clever I'd feel safe about having as my Commander in Chief.
The quality you want in a president is hucksterism? Because it strikes you as "clever"? You may want to rethink your priorities.
After seeing this thing Trump did with his big announcement...he played the news stations like suckers. That's the kind of clever I'd feel safe about having as my Commander in Chief.
The kind of clever in which you antagonise the media that are your lifeblood for the next two months? Because the news stations were less than impressed with today's infomercial. CNN put together a piece-by-piece dismantling of Trump's comments today, interspersed with the various birtherisms Trump was responsible for.
A Commander-in-chief that does things because they feel good in the short-term, ignoring the ultimate goal, isn't clever, just short-sighted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
That one I'm actually going to defend Trump on. It's pretty clear he's just making the standard gun rights argument that we use guns to protect people. His first insinuation that Clinton be shot was way worse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That one I'm actually going to defend Trump on. It's pretty clear he's just making the standard gun rights argument that we use guns to protect people. His first insinuation that Clinton be shot was way worse.
I agree. It's a dumb comment, but it's not really an incitement to violence. It's gotta more than just maybe possibly a bit of a vague suggestion.
Its more a call to lead by example - but I don't see Lady Lich doing any of the gun-grabbing. I imagine the continual gun-grabbing that went on under the table, and in their house per the Wikileaks stuff, soured Lady Lich on gun-grabbing.
edit - Trump did the birther thing, Hillary was a rape enabler. They both have their skeletons.
Its more a call to lead by example - but I don't see Lady Lich doing any of the gun-grabbing. I imagine the continual gun-grabbing that went on under the table, and in their house per the Wikileaks stuff, soured Lady Lich on gun-grabbing.
edit - Trump did the birther thing, Hillary was a rape enabler. They both have their skeletons.
Being a defense attorney does not make you a rape enabler. People who think that lawyers who defend criminals are somehow complicit in the crimes or are guilty by association if they do their job disgust me. It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for American values or the rule of law.
We're in agreement on one count - I'm also disgusted by the "guilt by association" mentality; but I'm not talking about her getting the alleged child rapist off. It's the under the table threats to the victims that accused Bill that I'm talking about.
We're in agreement on one count - I'm also disgusted by the "guilt by association" mentality; but I'm not talking about her getting the alleged child rapist off. It's the under the table threats to the victims that accused Bill that I'm talking about.
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have remembered there are other, equally asinine "rape enabler" smears out there.
Please don't marginalize the victims. It's a level of crassness I'd attribute to the worst in society. We're better than that.
What victims? Hillary didn't enable any rapes, and so there are no victims to marginalize. If you know of a credible instance that I haven't heard of, I'm all ears.
Juanita Broaddrick, though my use of victims in the post that you've quoted also applies to the one whose rapist got off with Hillary's help in the courtroom. The verdict's the verdict, but it doesn't not make his prey a victim (again, this was just Hillary doing her job, so I'm not counting it as an instance of rape enabling for the sake of our discussion). I mean, if the girl's rapist went to prison and ended up getting HIV, we'd be paying for the scum's medical treatments.
Juanita Broaddrick, though my use of victims in the post that you've quoted also applies to the one whose rapist got off with Hillary's help in the courtroom. The verdict's the verdict, but it doesn't not make his prey a victim (again, this was just Hillary doing her job, so I'm not counting it as an instance of rape enabling for the sake of our discussion). I mean, if the girl's rapist went to prison and ended up getting HIV, we'd be paying for the scum's medical treatments.
Juanita Broaddrick's allegation against Hillary is that at a fundraiser, Hillary shook her hand and thanked her, and that Broaddrick says she felt threatened. Broaddrick concedes she doesn't even know if Hillary knew about the incident with Bill. Broaddrick's allegations against Bill are, at the very least, quite plausible. But her allegations against Clinton are a more than a bit silly. A handshake doesn't make you a rape enabler.
Per her Reddit AMA, Ms Broaddick came away from the incident frightened of the Clintons (her employers were also frightened of what the Clintons might do to them under the table). In this case, Hillary's a rape enabler by way of using her clout to intimidate Ms Broaddick. I find it morally repugnant (especially since Hillary can't hide behind her job for this one). That said, I'm mature enough to agree to disagree with you if you've planted your flag on that hill.
Per her Reddit AMA, Ms Broaddick came away from the incident frightened of the Clintons (her employers were also frightened of what the Clintons might do to them under the table). In this case, Hillary's a rape enabler by way of using her clout to intimidate Ms Broaddick. I find it morally repugnant (especially since Hillary can't hide behind her job for this one). That said, I'm mature enough to agree to disagree with you if you've planted your flag on that hill.
"Using her clout to intimidate"? A handshake and a thank-you are not intimidation. Just because Broaddrick felt intimidated doesn't mean that what Hillary did was intended to threaten her. It's certainly reasonable that someone in her position might feel afraid, but that's not the same as Hillary actually intimidating or threatening her.
I can only take Ms Broaddrick's word - and she's not given me any reason not to, whereas Hillary's done that many times already - and wouldn't presume to put words in her mouth or make assumptions on her behalf. In closing, and again, we can continue to dance around making assumptions on the victim's behalf, or we can agree to disagree like adults.
I can only take Ms Broaddrick's word - and she's not given me any reason not to, whereas Hillary's done that many times already - and wouldn't presume to put words in her mouth or make assumptions on her behalf. In closing, and again, we can continue to dance around making assumptions on the victim's behalf, or we can agree to disagree like adults.
What assumptions am I making on her behalf? I'm just recounting her version of events. I AM taking her at her word.
So, to recap, you, in order to demonstrate that "both candidates have their skeletons", present an alleged wrongdoing for each. For Trump, you present his leadership of a nearly decade-long racist conspiracy theory. For Clinton, you claim that she's a "rape enabler". When pressed, your only evidence of that is that she shook the hand of someone in 1978. When I point out that this is wildly insufficient, you want to "agree to disagree", because that would be "like adults". You know what would be a good thing to do if we're acting like adults? Not peddling this nonsense in the first place. And when you find yourself defending an indefensible position, just admit your mistake rather than trying to weasel out of it by "agreeing to disagree".
No, my evidence is what Ms Broaddrick said in her AMA. My position's not indefensible when we have the individual's words as evidence. If I had rode Hillary getting the child rapist guy off, and called that rape enabling, you would be correct in stating I've made an untenable argument (for the very reasons you've already given - Hillary was just doing her job there).
The fact is, we have a victim accusing Hillary of intimidation in regards to an incident between her and Bill. Now, if you've sat through a university orientation wherein they discuss sexual assault, including the reporting of sexual assault, you'll see where Hillary's status as a rape enabler has its basis in academia. Now, she did ride the birther train for a bit in her campaign, but in the end no one was hurt because of it. So bringing that out as one of Hillary's skeletons seems moot. Her status as a rape enabler is more troubling to me, mainly because you have people like the judge that let Brock Turner out early that still seem to discount the victim's emotional state. It simply makes the individual, in this case Hillary, morally reprehensible.
If I had made a mistake here, I would admit to it. But, I have nothing to admit to here - except that my moral convictions won't let me give Hillary (or #Killary as the facebookers like to call her) my vote.
No, my evidence is what Ms Broaddrick said in her AMA. My position's not indefensible when we have the individual's words as evidence. If I had rode Hillary getting the child rapist guy off, and called that rape enabling, you would be correct in stating I've made an untenable argument (for the very reasons you've already given - Hillary was just doing her job there).
Please quote for me the exact words from her AMA that you feel are your evidence. As far as I can tell, she says the following about being threatened:
Sure, I was very frightened of the Clintons especially after my encounter with her. The attorney generals office regulating my nursing home and was afraid of consequences
I have never been around them in "real life". I was only around them when I was assaulted and threatened.
There is not, as far as I can tell, any instance of Broaddrick saying Hillary threatened her in this AMA. Is it possible you're thinking of some other source? Or maybe some other event entirely?
The fact is, we have a victim accusing Hillary of intimidation in regards to an incident between her and Bill. Now, if you've sat through a university orientation wherein they discuss sexual assault, including the reporting of sexual assault, you'll see where Hillary's status as a rape enabler has its basis in academia.
No it doesn't. Please enlighten me what "reporting of sexual assault" in universities has to do with this.
Now, she did ride the birther train for a bit in her campaign, but in the end no one was hurt because of it. So bringing that out as one of Hillary's skeletons seems moot.
What does this have to do with anything?
Her status as a rape enabler is more troubling to me, mainly because you have people like the judge that let Brock Turner out early that still seem to discount the victim's emotional state. It simply makes the individual, in this case Hillary, morally reprehensible.
Again, what does Brock Turner have to do with this? Why are you bringing up all these irrelevant things?
If I had made a mistake here, I would admit to it. But, I have nothing to admit to here - except that my moral convictions won't let me give Hillary (or #Killary as the facebookers like to call her) my vote.
I'm not sure you've said much here that isn't a mistake.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Clinton just went off on the Alt-Right in general and Trump in particular, pointing out Trump's repeated use of racism, sexism and conspiracy theories to unite his supporters. She also tears into Breitbart, Nigel Farage, Vladimir Putin and the international rise of fascism throughout the world recently.
The speech is huge so I'm not quoting the whole thing, but here's a sample. [full speech at the link]
Art is life itself.
Pity that it is being commited by Trump's campaign chief.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
That said, it doesn't look like he's going to win. With 74 days before the election, he trails in almost all the swing states and, furthermore, Clinton has a sturdy lead in enough states to clinch 272 electoral votes even without those swing states she leads in.
Trump is going to lose. But it is a national humiliation that he got this far.
Ooh! Ooh! I think I know how this game is played. Let me see if I've got it right:
Polls mean nothing.
Electoral college means nothing.
Fundraising means nothing.
Twitter followers means everything.
Subreddit size means everything.
Trump supporters think "If this gets one million likes, Donald Trump will be president!"
Do I win?
Oh wow. Will the humilation ever end? These stories just keep coming.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The quality you want in a president is hucksterism? Because it strikes you as "clever"? You may want to rethink your priorities.
A Commander-in-chief that does things because they feel good in the short-term, ignoring the ultimate goal, isn't clever, just short-sighted.
From: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-raises-specter-violence-hillary-clinton/
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree. It's a dumb comment, but it's not really an incitement to violence. It's gotta more than just maybe possibly a bit of a vague suggestion.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
edit - Trump did the birther thing, Hillary was a rape enabler. They both have their skeletons.
Being a defense attorney does not make you a rape enabler. People who think that lawyers who defend criminals are somehow complicit in the crimes or are guilty by association if they do their job disgust me. It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for American values or the rule of law.
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have remembered there are other, equally asinine "rape enabler" smears out there.
What victims? Hillary didn't enable any rapes, and so there are no victims to marginalize. If you know of a credible instance that I haven't heard of, I'm all ears.
Juanita Broaddrick's allegation against Hillary is that at a fundraiser, Hillary shook her hand and thanked her, and that Broaddrick says she felt threatened. Broaddrick concedes she doesn't even know if Hillary knew about the incident with Bill. Broaddrick's allegations against Bill are, at the very least, quite plausible. But her allegations against Clinton are a more than a bit silly. A handshake doesn't make you a rape enabler.
"Using her clout to intimidate"? A handshake and a thank-you are not intimidation. Just because Broaddrick felt intimidated doesn't mean that what Hillary did was intended to threaten her. It's certainly reasonable that someone in her position might feel afraid, but that's not the same as Hillary actually intimidating or threatening her.
What assumptions am I making on her behalf? I'm just recounting her version of events. I AM taking her at her word.
So, to recap, you, in order to demonstrate that "both candidates have their skeletons", present an alleged wrongdoing for each. For Trump, you present his leadership of a nearly decade-long racist conspiracy theory. For Clinton, you claim that she's a "rape enabler". When pressed, your only evidence of that is that she shook the hand of someone in 1978. When I point out that this is wildly insufficient, you want to "agree to disagree", because that would be "like adults". You know what would be a good thing to do if we're acting like adults? Not peddling this nonsense in the first place. And when you find yourself defending an indefensible position, just admit your mistake rather than trying to weasel out of it by "agreeing to disagree".
The fact is, we have a victim accusing Hillary of intimidation in regards to an incident between her and Bill. Now, if you've sat through a university orientation wherein they discuss sexual assault, including the reporting of sexual assault, you'll see where Hillary's status as a rape enabler has its basis in academia. Now, she did ride the birther train for a bit in her campaign, but in the end no one was hurt because of it. So bringing that out as one of Hillary's skeletons seems moot. Her status as a rape enabler is more troubling to me, mainly because you have people like the judge that let Brock Turner out early that still seem to discount the victim's emotional state. It simply makes the individual, in this case Hillary, morally reprehensible.
If I had made a mistake here, I would admit to it. But, I have nothing to admit to here - except that my moral convictions won't let me give Hillary (or #Killary as the facebookers like to call her) my vote.
Please quote for me the exact words from her AMA that you feel are your evidence. As far as I can tell, she says the following about being threatened:
There is not, as far as I can tell, any instance of Broaddrick saying Hillary threatened her in this AMA. Is it possible you're thinking of some other source? Or maybe some other event entirely?
For your reference, here are all the things she posted in her AMA:
https://www.reddit.com/user/Atensnut?count=101&before=t1_d6b2zf6
No it doesn't. Please enlighten me what "reporting of sexual assault" in universities has to do with this.
What does this have to do with anything?
Again, what does Brock Turner have to do with this? Why are you bringing up all these irrelevant things?
I'm not sure you've said much here that isn't a mistake.