Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

breatheme

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, what a racist!!


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026546879289425920

https://twitter.com/FOX2News/status/1027028952450125826

Oh come on, that doesn't erase the hundreds of times he's called Warren Pocahontas.

oscarBravo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, what a racist!!


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026546879289425920

https://twitter.com/FOX2News/status/1027028952450125826

It's bizarre how often Trump fans use that ridiculous argument: sure, he's said hundreds of racist things, but he said one or two nice things about individual black people therefore he couldn't possibly be racist.

It's as if they think: hey, I've fooled myself, how hard could it be to fool other people?

Penn

I'd be surprised if Trump even knew he was black. All Trump is doing is backing/congratulating a Republican candidate regarding an election.

Not so sure that outweighs the "constantly referring to black people as being dumb, having low IQs, calling for the death penalty for the Central Park 5, Mexicans are rapists, African "sh*thole" countries, refusing to rent to black tenants, refusing to believe Obama was born in America and saying laziness is a trait in blacks" stuff.

Outlaw Pete

breatheme wrote: »

Oh come on, that doesn't erase the hundreds of times he's called Warren Pocahontas.

Come on, you can do better than that one:

"Earlier this week, Donald Trump made a joke at an event honoring the great World War II Navajo Code Talkers. He poked fun at Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who used to claim to be Cherokee despite not having any evidence to substantiate the claim. Democrats and their media footsoldiers decided it’s racist to mock someone for falsely claiming to be Native American. For example, Jim Acosta of CNN wrote: “WH press sec says ‘Pocahontas’ is not a racial slur. (Fact check: it is.)”

"Uh, fact check: no. For one thing, as Gabriel Malor said, “No, derogatorily referring to a person who falsely claimed to be a Native American as Pocahontas is not a racial slur. It demeans no racial or ethnic group.” It definitely demeans women who claim that they’re Cherokee sans evidence.

"If your friends make fun of you for falsely claiming you totally have a real, live girlfriend in Toronto and she’s really busy so that’s why they can’t meet her, that doesn’t mean they hate Canadians. If people mock you for claiming to be British royalty by unceasingly addressing you as “Her Highness,” that doesn’t mean they hate the queen. You get the idea."

Oh and...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5lcART6TTE

Leroy42

Looks like the GOP candidate in the special election is going to win, albeit with a wafer thin margin.

Whilst the DNC will claim, with some justification, that the result is a far tighter than the gap that Trump won in 2016 and that pushing a race so close on a pretty safe seat is progress, it doesn't scream blue wave to me.

If they cannot get their voters out when Trump is so terrible, then can they really count on votes at all? Dems should really be sweeping all before them, if the chaos in America is to be believed.

Should a party looking to take back control of house and senate and then the POTUS in 2020 be expecting to win seats like this?

kunst nugget

Penn wrote: »

saying laziness is a trait in blacks" stuff.

Tbf, just on that one quote, that's taken from a book by a disgruntled employee that Trump fired and has never been corroborated by anyone else.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Less of the one-liners please.

kilns

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looks like the GOP candidate in the special election is going to win, albeit with a wafer thin margin.

Whilst the DNC will claim, with some justification, that the result is a far tighter than the gap that Trump won in 2016 and that pushing a race so close on a pretty safe seat is progress, it doesn't scream blue wave to me.

If they cannot get their voters out when Trump is so terrible, then can they really count on votes at all? Dems should really be sweeping all before them, if the chaos in America is to be believed.

Should a party looking to take back control of house and senate and then the POTUS in 2020 be expecting to win seats like this?

A huge problem for the democrats is that they are leaderless

ancapailldorcha

kilns wrote: »

A huge problem for the democrats is that they are leaderless

A bigger problem is that they seem to be relying on the "We're not Trump" card which failed them spectacularly in 2016. Unless someone with a vision arises within the party then it might not be much different in 2020.

Hande hoche!

Very poor result for the Democrats. They can take solace it the fact that it was a narrow margin compared to 2016 and that there will be more chances in less than three months.

At the same time, this is a period when the Manafort trial is on going, the idiot son Donald Junior's meeting with the Russkies is in the news and Trump seems extra prone to Tweet outbursts.

Next time around the aides might be able to distract Trump from his phone long enough to stay appearing somewhat "presidential". Likewise as mentioned above the Dem side seem leaderless. Throw in a bit more infighting among candidates could see enthusiasm wane in some quarters.


All in all, not exactly inspiring confidence as to the emergence of the Blue Wave.

Outlaw Pete

Penn wrote: »

I'd be surprised if Trump even knew he was black.

"Wrong!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1022872574634729472

Not so sure that outweighs the "constantly referring to black people as being dumb, having low IQs....

He must be racist against whites too so:

“Governor Perry just gave a pollster quote on me. He doesn’t understand what the word demagoguery means... Governor Perry failed on the border. He should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate.”

“Stupid Mitt. He is a dumb guy. I’ve always said he’s a dumb guy… I’m telling you, he’s a stupid person.”

“Word is that crying Glenn Beck left the GOP and doesn't have the right to vote in the Republican primary. Dumb as a rock.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/688179414585053184
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/699989306333650944

Someone referring to a black person or a Mexican as dumb does not therefore mean that the person must also be calling all black people or Mexicans dumb, or rapists for that matter if they were speaking about a particular subsection of such people.

calling for the death penalty for the Central Park 5

https://twitter.com/CKinstitute/status/1024327605930131456

kilns

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A bigger problem is that they seem to be relying on the "We're not Trump" card which failed them spectacularly in 2016. Unless someone with a vision arises within the party then it might not be much different in 2020.

Exactly, they have nobody charasmatic enough to lead them and more or less say to America follow me

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Wrong!"

Penn wrote: »

I'd be surprised if Trump even knew he was black.

I'm making a flippant remark in order to make a salient point contained within the rest of the paragraph.

Penn wrote: »

All Trump is doing is backing/congratulating a Republican candidate regarding an election.

The fact John James is black isn't why Trump is congratulating and praising him. It's not a defence against alleging Trump is racist. Trump is saying almost the exact same stuff for most Republicans in similar elections, and has been for months, eg "(Republican candidate) will be strong on borders and crime and our vets, not like (Democratic opponent) who wants open borders and weak military! MAGA!". He's doing so in the interests of the Republican Party, nothing to do with race.

kilns

To be honest as bad as Trump is, I dont think he is a racist. However, a substantial portion of his supporter base would be and he plays that card for them. i.e. the both sides defence

I dont believe the Twitter insults are racially motivated and are just Trump insults no matter what colour you are, plus the NFL thing, yes it may have been rooted in the police and black people but again he is appealing to his supporter base and knows they would love the fact he attacks anyone who they think are disrespecting America, without even understanding why they are taking this stand (pardon the pun)

oscarBravo

kilns wrote: »

To be honest as bad as Trump is, I dont think he is a racist.

Yeah, he's a racist. The fact that he insults people who aren't black doesn't make him not a racist.

The argument seems to be "he's not a racist, he's just an asshole", when in fact he's both racist and an asshole.

kilns

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, he's a racist. The fact that he insults people who aren't black doesn't make him not a racist.

The argument seems to be "he's not a racist, he's just an asshole", when in fact he's both racist and an asshole.

See I think this is where some people lose all rational when it comes to Trump. Does he has to be everything bad under the sun, no. But like his supporters on one side who cannot see anything that he does is wrong, there are those on the other side who cant step back and look at it objectively, and he is an asshole but not a racist

volchitsa

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, he's a racist. The fact that he insults people who aren't black doesn't make him not a racist.

The argument seems to be "he's not a racist, he's just an asshole", when in fact he's both racist and an asshole.

I don't think he has enough moral stance on anything to actually be racist, I think he sees all other people purely as objects to be manipulated for his own ends.

But it's clear that he deliberately uses racist ideas and imagery to appeal to a racist section of the American population that he sees as possible support for him. That doesn't bother him at all. But then nothing does.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looks like the GOP candidate in the special election is going to win, albeit with a wafer thin margin.

Whilst the DNC will claim, with some justification, that the result is a far tighter than the gap that Trump won in 2016 and that pushing a race so close on a pretty safe seat is progress, it doesn't scream blue wave to me.

If they cannot get their voters out when Trump is so terrible, then can they really count on votes at all? Dems should really be sweeping all before them, if the chaos in America is to be believed.

Should a party looking to take back control of house and senate and then the POTUS in 2020 be expecting to win seats like this?

It's a very slender win alright , but there are a few positives for the Democrats..

There are 2X more registered Republican voters than Democrats yet with ~8k votes left to count the GOP candidate is only about 1000 votes ahead or around 1%.

Trump won that district by 10 points , Romney by 12 points and the previous Congressman secured 65% of the vote.

Also bear in mind that this seat is up for grabs again in November..

That seat is rated a GOP+7 seat , meaning that it typically votes +7 above the overall average GOP vote , yet if they do finally win this one it will likely be by around 1%

There are 69 GOP seats in Congress that have margins less than that.. The Democrats only need a net 23 seat gain to control congress.

No question , the Democrats actually need to get the job done , but the evidence suggests it's there for the taking if they can close the deal..

everlast75

I'm simply not debating with anyone who says he is not racist.

Not because I am not up to a discussion, but because I have explained my view on this thread so many times before at this stage it is tiring. You can use Google and see what he does. Posting about him saying a good thing about a black person is like saying, "I'm not racist. Some of my friends are black".

Anyway, one good point about Ohio is that the republicans pumped huge amounts of money into that election, and despite Trump running away with that district and there not being a Dem in that seat for over 30 years, the Rep scraped by, by the narrowest of margins. Any Rep with 7 point lead or less should be very worried.

jooksavage

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm simply not debating with anyone who says he is not racist.

Not because I am not up to a discussion, but because I have explained my view on this thread so many times before at this stage it is tiring. You can use Google and see what he does. Posting about him saying a good thing about a black person is like saying, "I'm not racist. Some of my friends are black".

Anyway, one good point about Ohio is that the republicans pumped huge amounts of money into that election, and despite Trump running away with that district and there not being a Dem in that seat for over 30 years, the Rep scraped by, by the narrowest of margins. Any Rep with 7 point lead or less should be very worried.

It's not a debate. Trump was demonstrably racist long before he hit the campaign trail (sued by Nixon's administration in the 70s for discriminating against black tenants, his attitudes towards black employees, his treatment of the Central Park Five, for which he still refuses to apologize). What we're seeing now is a continuation of this. The Trumps and racism have gone hand in hand since year dot. Woody Guthrie wrote a song about Fred Trump's racism almost 70 years ago.


On the special election - very encouraging. Pollsters this morning saying that there are 65-70 less red districts up for grabs in November. If the Dems can keep the momentum up, Trump will finally have to contend with a house that isn't filled with sycophantic cowards.

Dohnjoe

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No question , the Democrats actually need to get the job done , but the evidence suggests it's there for the taking if they can close the deal..

If they can mobilise voters..

PropJoe10

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If they can mobilise voters..

If their voters aren't mobilised now, considering the sh*t show going on in the White House, they'll never be mobilised again.

pixelburp

Ohio-12 was a fair red state to begin I'd have though, no? And if fivethirtyeight are to be believed, the balance shifted by 13 points, leaving the GOP lead non-existent. That's still a pretty demonstrable backlash and even if the Republicans still win out, it'll hardly a resounding endorsement. Seems like the Dems were pretty mobilised, but just couldn't get over the hump of an already pretty lopsided district.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/august-7-election-results/

Captain Obvious

Manic Moran wrote: »

BLUF: We can't stop the influence, we refuse to stop the quid-pro-quo, so the only thing left is to look at the actions taken as a result of the influence or gifts.

TL version: Point missed, again, I'm afraid. I think you're trying to view my comments with an 'excusing Trump' lens. I'm not.

I am not a fan of rules unless the rules can be enforced. I am also not a fan of selective enforcement of the rules.

If a soldier was contacted by -anyone-, Russian, American, British, or German, looking to sell on state secrets, I would expect him to report that. The "Russian" bit has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant. Similarly, quid-pro-quos are strictly prohibited. "General, if you have the military buy our widget, made 100% in Alabama, we'll give you a lobbying job after you get out". The nationality of the other party is entirely irrelevant to the morality of the problem. The military is extremely strict on that sort of thing.

Yet that is exactly how US politicians operate. Quid pro quo is standard. It's very carefully structured to remain within the law, but "Help me get elected and I'll make you an ambassador" is standard practice. "Help me get elected and I'll ensure more money for your union members" is standard practice. "Help me get elected and I'll open this national park for oil drilling" is standard practice. And so on. Our politicians are bought and paid for. We help you get elected, you do something for us in return when you have the power to do it. At the national level, that's basically all of them, regardless of party. The only difference is who their benefactors are. (Local politicians I think are still generally honest enough: They don't have enough power to attract the attention of any power-brokers).

We don't enforce against this quid pro quo. At all. This leaves open the possibility of external powers getting involved even if we attempt to distinguish between foreign and domestic. We can't stop it, and here's a simple example why.

If the Russians are ballsy enough to say "Hi, we're the Russians, and we're going to help you win the election" to the candidate that they would prefer win (without a quid-pro-quo) is it legal? It's foreign involvement, sure, but illegal?
How about if the Russians didn't say it was the Russians, and pretended to be some concerned citizen in Tennessee, which is where I was going with the hypothetical, is it the same level of foreign involvement? Arguably, yes, because the effect is the same. Then we get into the whole 'troll factory', 'fake ID' business that Facebook is currently trying to fight. But is it as illegal?
If the Russians found an American member of the Illinois Republican Party and gave them the information (The 'useful idiot', let's say), and this 100% American person forwards it up in full honesty that he's trying to help his politician get elected, is this foreign involvement? I would argue just as much, yes, because it still gets out there and still has the same effect. Yet how on Earth can it be prohibited? You can't vet every source of information, and you can't stop even an Illinois Republican from helping his party. And if there is a quid-pro-quo which results from this, we pay no attention because it seems to be an American who is getting the quid or the quo, and that's the way US politics works (Even if that quid or quo actually benefits Russia in the long run).

The Russians, Chinese, whoever, are going to do what they can in every election to ensure that their preferred candidate gets a boost, even without the quid-pro-quo. They would be stupid not to. Attempting to prevent them from doing so is a fool's errand, and I submit that it has to be a given that they will achieve some level of influence on a result. Sure, it can be reduced, but we have to accept that there will be some regardless.

This is why I say we need to focus on the actions of the assisted party. If the above General selected the Alabama military widget in a neutral manner on its merits, and then got the lobbying gig after he retired, that's not illegal or immoral

I think we are missing the forest for the trees. Accepting Russian help (even if known) to get elected and neither promising or doing anything different in return is arguably better than accepting American help to get elected and actually promising or doing something which would not otherwise have been done as a result. The help is coming from one quarter or another because we can't stop it, so when are we going to start holding politicians to some form of ethical standard wherein they are not bought? Find me that politician, and he/she will get my vote in a heartbeat.

(Minor correction: I didn't vote for Obama. I did vote for Bernie in the primary, though. Not because of his policies as much as because I feel he was as close to an honest man as was on the ballot. I'd rather have an honest person with whom I disagree than one I didn't trust)

But there is a very big difference between an American business man passing on information or funding a campaign and a hostile foreign state hacking candidates and imbedding spies in order to bring to power a man they can manipulate. And that's a kind reflection on Trump. You are trying to excuse espionage by saying it's no different to bribery or nepotism. Is there no national pride in the right anymore?

Water John

Conspiring with any foreign power is a whole diff ball game.

Quin_Dub

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If they can mobilise voters..

PropJoe10 wrote: »

If their voters aren't mobilised now, considering the sh*t show going on in the White House, they'll never be mobilised again.

Can't find the reference just now , but I saw analysis from Ohio that showed that there was a significantly higher turnout in the urban areas vs. the more rural parts of the district and that that was a key factor in the swing away from the GOP as typically urban dwellers tend to be more moderate GOP or Democrat leaning.

Turnout was upper 30's in urban areas and high teens/low twenties in the rural parts.

robinph

What's the point in turning out to vote when they have to vote for exactly the same people again in a couple of months? It's a big swing, but does it really mean anything at this point?

StringerBell

robinph wrote: »

What's the point in turning out to vote when they have to vote for exactly the same people again in a couple of months? It's a big swing, but does it really mean anything at this point?

I think it should be treated very cautiously. A special election in August when the seat is up again in November is not a bell weather regardless of what anybody would like to believe.

The Dems seem to have gotten a bigger turnout than usual but they still need more to come out in November and they have got to be aware there will be a bigger Republican turnout too, even more so now they can talk about how close the election was in a Ruby red district.

Plenty of work to do. This is another candidate who had to distance themselves from Pelosi also to try gain votes. There is a question to be considered about whether she is hurting or helping at this point rightly or wrongly.

Itssoeasy

That Ohio 12 seat shouldn't have been any near as close as it is. I looked at the recent voting results and bar two years at the start of the 1980's(a democrat won the seat) the district has been solidly republican as it's not even close. The only time the lead seems to drop is when other candidates not from the two main parties take votes from the GOP candidate. I mean some of the margins of victory for GOP candidates make you wonder why the dems bothered at times.

Also, Trump is a racist. Lebron James, don lemon, and Maxine waters are all black and his standard insult for them is to question their intelligence. I mean he insults others that don't agree with him in other ways but never intelligence. George Wallace would be proud of that line of thinking.

amandstu

Will Trump's trade war be affected if the Dems gain control of Congress in the Midterms?