2016 Democratic Thread

[illinilaw08]

Regardless of this silly Byrd vs Duke thing, I agree with the this. And that comes from someone who despises Trump.

 

NSS, I usually agree with your political posts, but the Byrd vs. Duke thing is not silly. It's an intellectually dishonest effort by Trump supporters to paint Clinton and Trump in the same light re: the KKK.

 

Without opining on Byrd, there's a pretty clear difference between affiliating ones' self with Byrd - who spent years apologizing for his prior involvement with the KKK and Duke, who is still a white supremacist.

 

It's also relevant because Trump has said a lot of xenophobic and misogynstic things on the campaign trail.

 

The point here is that people actually believe the "both sides" meme in this instance, even when they are clearly distinguishable.

[bmags]

Also, buehrle is getting the response he does, because Republicans have continuously comforted themselves with "Robert Byrd was in the KKK and he was a democrate, who are the real racists!??!" and "The south during the jim crow era were Democrats!" without any critical thinking about those items.

 

It's a part of the longstanding tradition of only understanding racism in America as a rhetorical device.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Also, buehrle is getting the response he does, because Republicans have continuously comforted themselves with "Robert Byrd was in the KKK and he was a democrate, who are the real racists!??!" and "The south during the jim crow era were Democrats!" without any critical thinking about those items.

 

It's a part of the longstanding tradition of only understanding racism in America as a rhetorical device.

Me? Little lost here.

[StrangeSox]

Nothing I said was meant to downplay Duke. I was using Duke as the bench mark for being a piece of s*** and as I said tried lumping Byrd in with him and then admitted I was wrong about Byrd. That doesnt change anything about Duke though. I never said or implied that Duke wasnt so bad because of Byrd did I?

You admitted that it was just an attempted shot at Hillary. It doesn't change anything about Duke, but it does attempt to change the discussion about the role white supremacist support for Trump is playing by making a false equivalency.

[bmags]

Me? Little lost here.

 

You are getting such strong pushback because the usage of Robert Byrd as a tactic to deflect is very common, you aren't the first to do it.

[Buehrle>Wood]

You are getting such strong pushback because the usage of Robert Byrd as a tactic to deflect is very common, you aren't the first to do it.

That wasn't me though. I never brought him up.

[StrangeSox]

NSS, I usually agree with your political posts, but the Byrd vs. Duke thing is not silly. It's an intellectually dishonest effort by Trump supporters to paint Clinton and Trump in the same light re: the KKK.

 

Without opining on Byrd, there's a pretty clear difference between affiliating ones' self with Byrd - who spent years apologizing for his prior involvement with the KKK and Duke, who is still a white supremacist.

 

It's also relevant because Trump has said a lot of xenophobic and misogynstic things on the campaign trail.

 

The point here is that people actually believe the "both sides" meme in this instance, even when they are clearly distinguishable.

 

 

Also, buehrle is getting the response he does, because Republicans have continuously comforted themselves with "Robert Byrd was in the KKK and he was a democrate, who are the real racists!??!" and "The south during the jim crow era were Democrats!" without any critical thinking about those items.

 

It's a part of the longstanding tradition of only understanding racism in America as a rhetorical device.

 

Always liked TNC's framing of this issue:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...ce-card/256072/

 

From comments:

 

 

We conservatives will have a purge of the folks you liberals especially hate if you liberals have a purge of the folks we especially hate.

 

I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

 

The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.

 

This is a very old way of you thinking. It's what you get out of watching Buckley's bumbling response to Baldwin--he neither regards Baldwin with any seriousness, nor the issue with any real concern. It's a game to him. He is effectively a homer for team red. Nothing else matters.

 

That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today. To abandon that tradition, I suspect, would be cause for an existential crisis.

[NorthSideSox72]

NSS, I usually agree with your political posts, but the Byrd vs. Duke thing is not silly. It's an intellectually dishonest effort by Trump supporters to paint Clinton and Trump in the same light re: the KKK.

 

Without opining on Byrd, there's a pretty clear difference between affiliating ones' self with Byrd - who spent years apologizing for his prior involvement with the KKK and Duke, who is still a white supremacist.

 

It's also relevant because Trump has said a lot of xenophobic and misogynstic things on the campaign trail.

 

The point here is that people actually believe the "both sides" meme in this instance, even when they are clearly distinguishable.

Sorry, to be clear, I meant the obfuscation was silly. Specifically even bringing Byrd into the discussion. It's a distraction. I didn't even give a second's thought to the actual comparison because it is baseless.

 

[DrunkBomber]

You admitted that it was just an attempted shot at Hillary. It doesn't change anything about Duke, but it does attempt to change the discussion about the role white supremacist support for Trump is playing by making a false equivalency.

If you want to take a shot at me for incorrectly trying to take a cheap shot at Hillary thats fine. I should have read more about it before I posted it. But trying to say Im downplaying the KKK or David Duke is complete bulls***. Ive gotten s*** from white supremacists my whole life because of my religion and it is really offensive to have someone try to make it sound like Im defending them by twisting my words. You misinterpreted what I said and even though Ive explained it three times you keep going back to the same thing.

[bmags]

That wasn't me though. I never brought him up.

Ugh, I'm sorry man. My apologies, working on a small screen at work and got confused.

[StrangeSox]

I didn't misinterpret your posts as defending David Duke or his ideology. I'm pointing out that taking a cheap shot at Hillary for embracing "a former KKK member" has the effect of distracting from Donald Trump's base of support among white supremacists. Even if that wasn't your intention, that's what that does, and that's clearly the intention of the people distributing the image macro in the snopes article you linked; "Donald Trump, the guy who has enjoyed the support of white supremacists since he kicked off his campaign with his "Mexico is importing rapists and murderers" speech, isn't racist, Hillary Clinton is the real racist!." Which is again not necessarily what you were intending to do, but that's the message those sorts of false equivalencies convey. It's used as a shield from criticism.

 

The same sort of excuse-making comes up all the time whenever conservatives or conservative ideology is being accused of racism in some form or another; Republicans freed the slaves! Democrats ran Jim Crow! Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act! Robert Byrd was in the KKK! All true, but all irrelevant to current ideological alignments and often lacking historical context and developments since then. If the discussion shifts to "Hillary Clinton's relationship with Robert Byrd," it's no longer about David Duke supporting Trump's campaign in 2016.

 

[DrunkBomber]

I didn't misinterpret your posts as defending David Duke or his ideology. I'm pointing out that taking a cheap shot at Hillary for embracing "a former KKK member" has the effect of distracting from Donald Trump's base of support among white supremacists. Even if that wasn't your intention, that's what that does, and that's clearly the intention of the people distributing the image macro in the snopes article you linked; "Donald Trump, the guy who has enjoyed the support of white supremacists since he kicked off his campaign with his "Mexico is importing rapists and murderers" speech, isn't racist, Hillary Clinton is the real racist!." Which is again not necessarily what you were intending to do, but that's the message those sorts of false equivalencies convey. It's used as a shield from criticism.

 

The same sort of excuse-making comes up all the time whenever conservatives or conservative ideology is being accused of racism in some form or another; Republicans freed the slaves! Democrats ran Jim Crow! Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act! Robert Byrd was in the KKK! All true, but all irrelevant to current ideological alignments and often lacking historical context and developments since then. If the discussion shifts to "Hillary Clinton's relationship with Robert Byrd," it's no longer about David Duke supporting Trump's campaign in 2016.

Thats fine and Ive admitted I made a mistake by posting the link without doing more research. Im fine with whatever s*** I get for that part of it because it was my mistake. As long as its clear that I it in no way was trying to defend or make excuses for Duke or the KKK, which it sounds like you understand at least.

[greg775]

Bernie was in my neck of the woods today. If you listen to this man, you will realize he SHOULD be the Democratic candidate. Bernie Sanders is a great man and a helluva candidate!

He's the polar opposite of Hillary. I happen to think Hillary is a liar and a fairly rotten person. My opinion. Bernie appears to be a truth teller and a good person.

 

[Brian]

Bernie was in my neck of the woods today. If you listen to this man, you will realize he SHOULD be the Democratic candidate. Bernie Sanders is a great man and a helluva candidate!

He's the polar opposite of Hillary. I happen to think Hillary is a liar and a fairly rotten person. My opinion. Bernie appears to be a truth teller and a good person.

 

 

Really?

 

[Brian]

Rumor Jesse Ventura is thinking of jumping in as 3rd party if Bernie doesn't get nomination. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Buehrle>Wood]

I thought he was in jail or something to be honest.

[Balta1701]

Bernie was in my neck of the woods today. If you listen to this man, you will realize he SHOULD be the Democratic candidate. Bernie Sanders is a great man and a helluva candidate!

He's the polar opposite of Hillary. I happen to think Hillary is a liar and a fairly rotten person. My opinion. Bernie appears to be a truth teller and a good person.

 

Please just leave this thread. There's another thread where you can go praise people who are arguing over the sizes of their penises. Literally zero people in this thread want to hear you talk about how our likely candidate's voice is shrill but comparing penis size is honorable and presidential.

[Buehrle>Wood]

So today's scandal is that Hillary paid herself 250,000 in campaign funds. No other candidate did so. Does anyone care?

[Kyyle23]

I thought he was in jail or something to be honest.

 

kayfabe

[southsider2k5]

So today's scandal is that Hillary paid herself 250,000 in campaign funds. No other candidate did so. Does anyone care?

 

Democrats: No, you are an idiot for even thinking that.

Republicans Yes, this is the biggest scandal ever.

[Balta1701]

So today's scandal is that Hillary paid herself 250,000 in campaign funds. No other candidate did so. Does anyone care?

I can't say I know the law on this at all.

[StrangeSox]

I can't say I know the law on this at all.

The Washington Free Beacon appears to be the source on this, and they say:

 

While it is legal for candidates to pay themselves from campaign funds, the rule was established and intended for candidates who are not well off and quit their jobs to run for political office.

 

Per OpenSecrets, Clinton has self-funded her campaign with $468,037, so she's still net-negative. It appears that her and Trump are the only candidates to contribute self-financing so far (though Trump obviously at a much higher level).

 

They also say this, which seems to contradict itself:

 

No other candidate running for president recorded payments to themselves, FEC files show. Donald Trump reimbursed $410,000 to himself and other Trump entities for payroll expenses, rent, hotel, and restaurant bills in December, according to reports.

 

Donald Trump didn't record payments to himself, but he did have "reimbursements"? What's the difference?

[Buehrle>Wood]

The Washington Free Beacon appears to be the source on this, and they say:

 

 

 

Per OpenSecrets, Clinton has self-funded her campaign with $468,037, so she's still net-negative. It appears that her and Trump are the only candidates to contribute self-financing so far (though Trump obviously at a much higher level).

 

They also say this, which seems to contradict itself:

 

 

 

Donald Trump didn't record payments to himself, but he did have "reimbursements"? What's the difference?

Part of Trump's financing is loaning the campaign money so Id guess it'd be getting a little of that back whereas Clinton pays herself as an employee from campaign donation money.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Buehrle>Wood

[greg775]

So today's scandal is that Hillary paid herself 250,000 in campaign funds. No other candidate did so. Does anyone care?

I do. I was talking to some 20 somethings yesterday at an event in Lawrence and asked them what they thought of the election. Of course I asked about Hillary and you should see their response. I don't know if all young people hate other people's grandmothers or something but they immediately burst out saying how much they despise Hillary. She's going to have to accept the fact young people are not in her corner for whatever reason.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Bernie Sanders agreed to do a Fox News Town Hall. Clinton declined said she had a scheduling conflict. Then she heard Bernie was going so she agreed. Either way, I'll give her credit. Pretty ballsy to show up.