Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Custardpi

Christy42 wrote: »

I think it is just utter disbelief and underestimating how little Trump voters care about these things. I mean I really don't think anyone understands why these people vote for him. As far as I am concerned it shouldn't matter if the media make a mess of taking him apart, people still shouldn't vote for people who say these things.

That's because Trump supporters aren't so much voting for Trump as against what they see as a corrupt establishment which holds them in contempt. He is seen as an antidote to the scripted, bought & paid for phonies who, as Trump supporters see it dominate politics & media. His actual policies or policy statements don't matter. He represents an opportunity to heave a brick through Washington's window - that's his selling point.

As for the idea that "people still shouldn't vote for people who say these things" that's exactly the kind of statement which would make Trump supporters come out & vote - a reaction against people telling them what they can & can't say or how they should or shouldn't vote. Childish & impetulant? Perhaps, but it's an increasingly powerful reaction & unless those opposing Trump figure out a smarter way to go about things than simply pointing at him aghast & going "Waah, you can't say that, it's mean, look at Trump the big meanie, #Trumpisapoopyhead" which is essentially what most of the media spin against him amounts to then a Trump presidency becomes a real possibility.

JPNelsforearm

Deleted User wrote: »

What does the figure give us? (Estimate of percentage of Illegal immigrant Females that have suffered sexual assault)

What did Trump suggest the figure gave us? ...................

Are these the same things?

No, of course not, but when you look at the crime statistics for the same demographic when they are collated(ignoring the fact local police forces have been massaging the figures to lower that number through mischaracterisation*) in the US, and look at the 80% figure, its logical to say there are a lot of criminals crossing the border, a large number of rapists among them.


*
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/whoops_texas_state_troopers_classifying_hispanics_as_white.html

oscarBravo

Custardpi wrote: »

As for the idea that "people still shouldn't vote for people who say these things" that's exactly the kind of statement which would make Trump supporters come out & vote - a reaction against people telling them what they can & can't say or how they should or shouldn't vote. Childish & impetulant? Perhaps, but it's an increasingly powerful reaction & unless those opposing Trump figure out a smarter way to go about things than simply pointing at him aghast & going "Waah, you can't say that, it's mean, look at Trump the big meanie, #Trumpisapoopyhead" which is essentially what most of the media spin against him amounts to then a Trump presidency becomes a real possibility.

There's a catch-22 inherent in your point. The kind of people who are motivated to vote for a bigot by being told they shouldn't vote for a bigot - what actual logic or reason could persuade them differently?

The only alternative to condemning Trump, which appears to be counterproductive, is not to condemn him. What kind of society have we built where we fear to criticise bigotry because to criticise it is to encourage it?

Custardpi

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a catch-22 inherent in your point. The kind of people who are motivated to vote for a bigot by being told they shouldn't vote for a bigot - what actual logic or reason could persuade them differently?

The only alternative to condemning Trump, which appears to be counterproductive, is not to condemn him. What kind of society have we built where we fear to criticise bigotry because to criticise it is to encourage it?

It's a tricky one sure, but the reality is that simply yelling "bigot" at someone who dares to have different opinions to you doesn't really work & doesn't do anything to change their beliefs, no matter how morally superior to them it might make you feel. Trump's opponents are simply going to have to figure out a way to persuade his supporters to vote for an alternative, rather than simply telling them what awful people they are for voting the "wrong" way.

JPNelsforearm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No, of course not, but when you look at the crime statistics for the same demographic when they are collated(ignoring the fact local police forces have been massaging the figures to lower that number through mischaracterisation*) in the US, and look at the 80% figure, its logical to say there are a lot of criminals crossing the border, a large number of rapists among them.
*
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/whoops_texas_state_troopers_classifying_hispanics_as_white.html

Yes, I agree that the second article you posted is far, far far more relevant.

The first is almost insultingly poor as a reference though. I'd advise trying not to conflate 'being raped' with 'being a rapist' in the same way as citing that in that context could easily have been read as.

JPNelsforearm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I agree that the second article you posted is far, far far more relevant.

The first is almost insultingly poor as a reference though. I'd advise trying not to conflate 'being raped' with 'being a rapist' in the same way as citing that in that context could easily have been read as.

Absolutely, I was merely giving Trumps remark context.

orubiru

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a catch-22 inherent in your point. The kind of people who are motivated to vote for a bigot by being told they shouldn't vote for a bigot - what actual logic or reason could persuade them differently?

The only alternative to condemning Trump, which appears to be counterproductive, is not to condemn him. What kind of society have we built where we fear to criticise bigotry because to criticise it is to encourage it?

It's not the criticism of bigotry that's the problem. It's the method of criticism.

If you are going to accuse someone of being a bigot but you do so in an dishonest, disingenuous and underhand way then it looks like you are not really giving the full story.

There is a major difference between openly supporting the KKK and refusing to disavow some thing said by some guy who is/was part of the KKK. Yet, the media are trying to tie those things together. It's a cheap trick and he can say "look at these cheap tricks".

Why not stick to actual things that he's actually said and just keep reminding the public that he said them?

The intentions are good. The methods are becoming increasingly ridiculous.

Like pulling off stupid stunts such as getting Trump to re-tweet quotes by Mussolini. That's just performing stunts for a crowd that already agrees with you. Yeah, it can be so cathartic to point and laugh out loud but what does it really achieve?

Trumps critics and opponents need to drop the "holier than thou" attitude and they need to stop trying to show off how elaborately smart and witty they can be.

I'm not even sure who these witty Facebook posts or news reports or John Oliver skits are aimed at. It feels like one big echo chamber where people who already know how bad Trump is are sitting around, nodding and agreeing and chuckling about how bad Trump is. Meanwhile he is out there gaining support.

If I'm not a bigot and you are not a bigot then we aren't going to do much to stop bigotry by agreeing with each other and congratulating ourselves on not being one of those awful bigots you hear about, right?

oscarBravo

Custardpi wrote: »

It's a tricky one sure, but the reality is that simply yelling "bigot" at someone who dares to have different opinions to you doesn't really work & doesn't do anything to change their beliefs, no matter how morally superior to them it might make you feel. Trump's opponents are simply going to have to figure out a way to persuade his supporters to vote for an alternative, rather than simply telling them what awful people they are for voting the "wrong" way.

orubiru wrote: »

It's not the criticism of bigotry that's the problem. It's the method of criticism.

If you are going to accuse someone of being a bigot but you do so in an dishonest, disingenuous and underhand way then it looks like you are not really giving the full story.

There is a major difference between openly supporting the KKK and refusing to disavow some thing said by some guy who is/was part of the KKK. Yet, the media are trying to tie those things together. It's a cheap trick and he can say "look at these cheap tricks".

Why not stick to actual things that he's actually said and just keep reminding the public that he said them?

The intentions are good. The methods are becoming increasingly ridiculous.

Like pulling off stupid stunts such as getting Trump to re-tweet quotes by Mussolini. That's just performing stunts for a crowd that already agrees with you. Yeah, it can be so cathartic to point and laugh out loud but what does it really achieve?

Trumps critics and opponents need to drop the "holier than thou" attitude and they need to stop trying to show off how elaborately smart and witty they can be.

I'm not even sure who these witty Facebook posts or news reports or John Oliver skits are aimed at. It feels like one big echo chamber where people who already know how bad Trump is are sitting around, nodding and agreeing and chuckling about how bad Trump is. Meanwhile he is out there gaining support.

If I'm not a bigot and you are not a bigot then we aren't going to do much to stop bigotry by agreeing with each other and congratulating ourselves on not being one of those awful bigots you hear about, right?

OK, but so far I'm still just seeing "the people calling Trump a bigot are stupid" rather than any actual suggestions as to how he can be countered.


It's easy to complain that nobody is doing anything useful to combat the rise of Trump; it's harder to come up with a useful way to combat the rise of Trump. Any suggestions?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, but so far I'm still just seeing "the people calling Trump a bigot are stupid" rather than any actual suggestions as to how he can be countered.


It's easy to complain that nobody is doing anything useful to combat the rise of Trump; it's harder to come up with a useful way to combat the rise of Trump. Any suggestions?

Present credible political alternatives.

Custardpi

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, but so far I'm still just seeing "the people calling Trump a bigot are stupid" rather than any actual suggestions as to how he can be countered.


It's easy to complain that nobody is doing anything useful to combat the rise of Trump; it's harder to come up with a useful way to combat the rise of Trump. Any suggestions?

If I had a definite solution to the problem I'd be contacting the f*ck out of the Democratic party, what's left of the Republican party as well as a few media outlets over there. I don't claim any expertise in this at all, just an ability to see that what is currently being done isn't working & is massively counterproductive as an anti-Trump strategy.

To use an analogy I know next to feck-all about rugby so would have no clue on how to advise the Irish team on improving their poor performance in this year's Six Nations. However, were I to observe Jonathan Sexton tying a bag of cement to his leg every time he attempted a conversion & then missing badly I'd feel knowledgeable enough to opine that such a tactic wasn't the best of ideas.

As regards the Trump problem itself the major issue is the extent to which many US voters (it's by no means a phenomenon exclusive to that country) feel alienated from the political & media establishment. Figuring out how to address that anger, how to engage with those concerns (even if you don't share them) will be the key to stopping the Trump juggernaut. That's not going to be easy true but it needs to happen. Hopefully there are people over there smarter than you or I who are working on it.

oscarBravo

Custardpi wrote: »

Hopefully there are people over there smarter than you or I who are working on it.

You've touched on part of the problem: there's a worrying trend towards rejection of "smart" as a positive thing. Donald Trump isn't stupid, but he knows how to act stupid in order to appeal to people who are suspicious of intelligence.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've touched on part of the problem: there's a worrying trend towards rejection of "smart" as a positive thing. Donald Trump isn't stupid, but he knows how to act stupid in order to appeal to people who are suspicious of intelligence.

Your comment is a prime example of the attitude that facilitates the rise of a Trump. People are not "suspicious of intelligence" as you put it, they do however reject being told what is good for them by people who portray themselves to be their betters, classwise and intellectually.

Just a another manifestation of the the whole "Trumps supporters are bigots, racists, red necks" and now we have "people who are suspicious of intelligence" aka idiots, coming from yourself.

Its the whole phenomena of the "coastal liberal" that breeds a political class full of Aodhan O'Riordan's, Justin Trudeau's etc, who are elected either by right on lefties and/or the working class and then proceed to lecture and give out their version of how the world should work, mass immigration, neo liberalism, gun control, speech control, etc etc. all the while condescendingly looking down upon the people who will be voting Trump.

KomradeBishop

"Texas Universities Warn Faculty to 'Avoid Sensitive Topics' Due to Insane Gun Laws"
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/texas-universities-warn-faculty-avoid-sensitive-topics-due-insane-gun-laws

As a contrast to all the posts in the other thread, about left-wing feminists being a threat to free speech, for protesting about college speeches - here's the right-wing equivalent, where allowing students to have loaded concealed-carry weapons in colleges, creates an entire cultural chilling-effect damaging free speech - so much so, that the college itself advises avoiding 'sensitive topics' in general (i.e. anything an angry person with a gun might not like...).

El Burro Juicioso

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've touched on part of the problem: there's a worrying trend towards rejection of "smart" as a positive thing. Donald Trump isn't stupid, but he knows how to act stupid in order to appeal to people who are suspicious of intelligence.

Unbelievable, you have done exactly what others have been pointing out already. You cannot just toss away Trump's supporters as not smart or "suspicious of intelligence", whatever way you want to poorly disguise it. He appeals to a huge range of supporters. America isn't a nation of stupid people, whatever you want to think.. (I gleaned that from majority are supporting Trump, and probably will end up making him president)

And besides, why do stupid people (or those "suspicious of intelligence", again whatever the f*ck that means) get less of a vote? All sorts of different races, genders, ethnic backgrounds, etc get to vote equally, but stupid people are just left to their own devices and derided? Maybe we should deride the "smart" people for not being able to tap into the stupid vote, it being a majority and all. Not very smart if you ask me.

Maybe if we called them "differently intelligent" people would look for their votes, I'm not sure.

(That last bit was tongue in cheek before rioting)

The Black Oil

Trump is like weird blend of Michael O' Leary, Boris Johnson and Ian O' Doherty.

The Black Oil

The Black Oil wrote: »

Trump is like weird blend of Michael O' Leary, Boris Johnson and Ian O' Doherty.

+ Simon Cowell pantomime villain

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

"Texas Universities Warn Faculty to 'Avoid Sensitive Topics' Due to Insane Gun Laws"
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/texas-universities-warn-faculty-avoid-sensitive-topics-due-insane-gun-laws

As a contrast to all the posts in the other thread, about left-wing feminists being a threat to free speech, for protesting about college speeches - here's the right-wing equivalent, where allowing students to have loaded concealed-carry weapons in colleges, creates an entire cultural chilling-effect damaging free speech - so much so, that the college itself advises avoiding 'sensitive topics' in general (i.e. anything an angry person with a gun might not like...).

Insert 'Trigger Warning' pun here

The Randy Riverbeast

I love how Trump supporters are all for telling it as it is and speaking their mind, until someone says something about them.

PopePalpatine

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I love how Trump supporters are all for telling it as it is and speaking their mind, until someone says something about them.

And also that they're able to somehow turn Trump's "speaking his mind" on Mexico sending rapists and murderers into the USA as concern for Hispanic immigrant rape victims.

Custardpi

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I love how Trump supporters are all for telling it as it is and speaking their mind, until someone says something about them.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Not a Trump supporter myself as I hope I've made clear but I've always had a respect for those who speak plainly, without cant or faux politeness, even if their ideas are fundamentally opposed to my own. That however does not mean that if someone says something with which I disagree I'm not going to react or that if someone insults me I'm not going to object. I'll still respect their right to hold a negative opinion of my beliefs or indeed of me as a person, but that's not the same as simply sitting back passively & taking it.

JPNelsforearm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And also that they're able to somehow turn Trump's "speaking his mind" on Mexico sending rapists and murderers into the USA as concern for Hispanic immigrant rape victims.

Yes, because pointing out increased crime of all types, as a result of mass immigration, is concern trolling for hispanic rape victims....

The fact you can see the evidence, that illegal immigration of a South American underclass=increased crime, and somehow view the issue/problem as the person who presents that info, says it all.

The issue is immigration and open borders, women being raped is a symptom of that.

None of those women(beyond the normal rate they would face in their home countries) would have been raped if the border was sealed. Same with the Paris attacks, sealed border, no terrorism. Cologne, Rotherham, Derby, Scandinavia etc etc

Obviously though, the people who point this out are the problem, not the actual perpetrators of criminality and the policies that lead to those people being granted entry into the country/given free reign to mass sexually assault vulnerable women trying to enter the US illegally....

JPNelsforearm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Yes, because pointing out increased crime of all types, as a result of mass immigration, is concern trolling for hispanic rape victims....

The fact you can see the evidence, that illegal immigration of a South American underclass=increased crime, and somehow view the issue/problem as the person who presents that info, says it all.

The issue is immigration and open borders, women being raped is a symptom of that.

None of those women(beyond the normal rate they would face in their home countries) would have been raped if the border was sealed. Same with the Paris attacks, sealed border, no terrorism. Cologne, Rotherham, Derby, Scandinavia etc etc

Obviously though, the people who point this out are the problem, not the actual perpetrators of criminality and the policies that lead to those people being granted entry into the country/given free reign to mass sexually assault vulnerable women trying to enter the US illegally....

I thought we were discussing illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants availing of open borders?

The evidence of increased criminality you referenced absolutely did not deal with legal immigrants.

robdonn

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

None of those women(beyond the normal rate they would face in their home countries) would have been raped if the border was sealed.

None of those women, beyond the normal rate they would face in their home countries, would have been raped if crossing the border legally was more accessible. They weren't raped by an open border.

JPNelsforearm

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought we were discussing illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants availing of open borders?

The evidence of increased criminality you referenced absolutely did not deal with legal immigrants.

When I say mass immigration I obviously mean illegal, legal immigrants dont avail of an "open border", they have to petition for entry and gain a visa.

Custardpi

JP, even if the issues you mention (I agree they shouldn't be ignored) were as cut & dry as you present them you'd surely have to admit that the approach of many of those on the Right to them has been extraordinarily cack-handed. The idea of getting Mexico to pay for a wall for instance is a non-starter. Are there criminals crossing the border? Undoubtedly, but why not then look at ways of reducing that criminality? Ending the utterly pointless "War on Drugs" would be a massive help in that department both for Mexico & the many central American countries who are spewing both victims & perpetuators of the narco-conflicts towards the North.

JPNelsforearm

robdonn wrote: »

None of those women, beyond the normal rate they would face in their home countries, would have been raped if crossing the border legally was more accessible. They weren't raped by an open border.

They were raped due to the criminality and general lawless environment that has sprung up due to the US not enforcing border control and thus dissuading people from making a journey that is destined to end in failure.

Same situation in Europe, Merkal declares open season, millions mobilise.

El Burro Juicioso

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I love how Trump supporters are all for telling it as it is and speaking their mind, until someone says something about them.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And also that they're able to somehow turn Trump's "speaking his mind" on Mexico sending rapists and murderers into the USA as concern for Hispanic immigrant rape victims.

Personally, I feel Trump getting elected would be a disaster for the US. Same goes for the other Lizard person most likely to get the Democrat nomination. However, neither of these facile posts really strike me as anything but straw-man.

Who are all these Trump supporters? Why didn't you quote one in a specific incident if there is such an abundance?

I'm not sure where you managed to twist the Mexico situation from my reading of this thread. Again, a simple quote/source would do wonders for your argument rather than declarative, blanket statements that I don't really think hold up to the true light of day.

Again, thinking you know better than the citizens of a country in a different continent and actually proving you know better are entirely different things. Basically, this is where the anti-Trump campaign has failed.

robdonn

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

They were raped due to the criminality and general lawless environment that has sprung up due to the US not enforcing border control and thus dissuading people from making a journey that is destined to end in failure.

Same situation in Europe, Merkal declares open season, millions mobilise.

You can build a Game of Thrones sized wall on that border and people will still find a way to cross it, and the criminal organisations will still be in charge of it and people will still get robbed, raped and murdered trying to avail of their services.

JPNelsforearm

Custardpi wrote: »

JP, even if the issues you mention (I agree they shouldn't be ignored) were as cut & dry as you present them you'd surely have to admit that the approach of many of those on the Right to them has been extraordinarily cack-handed. The idea of getting Mexico to pay for a wall for instance is a non-starter. Are there criminals crossing the border? Undoubtedly, but why not then look at ways of reducing that criminality? Ending the utterly pointless "War on Drugs" would be a massive help in that department both for Mexico & the many central American countries who are spewing both victims & perpetuators of the narco-conflicts towards the North.

There is no right left divide on this issue both are in favour for different reasons, as we see in Europe many on the right/pro eu/globalist side are in favour of open borders. In the US many on the right are also in favour of open borders for business and/or religious reasons. You either believe in a nation or you dont, its not a right left political issue imo.

Absolutely, ending the war on drugs etc, a myriad of solutions, but closing the border is the most obvious.

I wouldnt be "on the right" on social issues, but on issues like this I would be grouped as "on the right", when in fact its the center right with their hands on the tiller on the Continent who have unilaterally decided we dont need borders, which obviously I dont agree with..

JPNelsforearm

robdonn wrote: »

You can build a Game of Thrones sized wall on that border and people will still find a way to cross it, and the criminal organisations will still be in charge of it and people will still get robbed, raped and murdered trying to avail of their services.

No one was drowning in the Aegean and the Ionian until it crept down the grapevine that once you reach European soil you have made it, you wont be sent home, that trickle became a flood and in the face of a drowned child Merkal downed the border, precipitating a mass movement of people.

Obviously people will still find away across, but then you capture them and deport them, eventually the obvious futility of repeating such an unprofitable exercise will sink in.

If the US wants or needs 11 million people to work picking fruit, give out 11 million legal work permits, just like if people want to buy cocaine, sell it to them. Remove the criminal element. US agri business and Mexican criminals are the only winners in the current set up.