Jump to content

In US politics, speaking truth plainly is apparently forbidden


Recommended Posts

It is indeed weird when a Presidential candidate is virtually forced to recant for saying something that is true and obvious to pretty much everybody.

 

Many Trump supporters are, in fact, hateful, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic bigots. They have made this obvious for many months now. His campaign has won the support of Americas most prominent white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The KKK and David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and perhaps the most famous face of the American white supremacy movement, have endorsed T'Rump. "I'm thinking more and more that this candidacy is a really good thing for us," Duke said.

 

Duke is the just the latest in a long line of similarly extreme figures who have warmed to Trump's candidacy. Trump enjoys the support of a who's who of contemporary white supremacist and neo-Nazi leaders and institutions. The members of what one might call Trump's white supremacist fan club include:

* The Daily Stormer, a leading neo-Nazi news site, endorsed Trump on June 28. "Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: its time to deport these people," the site said in its endorsement. It then urged white men to "vote for the first time in our lives for the one man who actually represents our interests."

* Richard Spencer, director of the National Policy Institute, which promotes the "heritage, identity, and future of European people," said that Trump was "refreshing. Trump, on a gut level, kind of senses that this is about demographics, ultimately. Were moving into a new America," Spencer said. "I don't think Trump is a white nationalist," Spencer added, but noted that Trump embodies "an unconscious vision that white people have - that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country. I think that scares us. They probably arent able to articulate it. I think it's there. I think that, to a great degree, explains the Trump phenomenon. I think he is the one person who can tap into it." The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Spencer "a suit-and-tie version of the white supremacists of old."

* Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, a Virginia-based white nationalist magazine, said: "I'm sure he would repudiate any association with people like me, but his support comes from people who are more like me than he might like to admit.[/i]"

* Michael Hill, head of the League of the South, an Alabama-based white supremacist secessionist group, said Trump was "good" for the white racist cause. "I love to see somebody like Donald Trump come along," Hill said. "Not that I believe anything that he says. But he is stirring up chaos in the GOP, and for us that is good." Hill gave a speech to a crowd of cheering followers in which he railed against the "cultural genocide" of white Americans, which he said was "merely a prelude to physical genocide."

* Brad Griffin, a member of Hills League of the South and author of the popular white supremacist blog Hunter Wallace, has written that his esteem for Trump is "soaring, and has lauded the candidate for his "hostile takeover of the Republican Party."

 

....to name just a few, symbolic of the many...

 

*****

 

And now for the meat of this OP....

 

Yes, Most Donald Trump Supporters Are Deplorable and Irredeemable

New York Magazine

By Jonathan Chait

Following the classic definition of a gaffe as a politician telling the truth, Hillary Clintons comment about Donald Trumps supporters ("just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trumps supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- you name it") was the purest and most classic example. The national media has spent a year and a quarter documenting in exquisite, redundant detail the rabid, anti-intellectual nationalistic bigotry of Trumps hard-core fanbase. But it has taken Hillary Clinton's affirmation to transform this by-now-banal observation into a scandal.

 

Back in February, Wall Street Journal editorial columnist Bret Stephens mourned that it had once been a slander that "Republicans were all closet bigots," but "Not anymore. The candidacy of Donald Trump is the open sewer of American conservatism." Stephens proceeded to argue that Trumps carefully hedged disavowal of David Duke failed to dent his support -- "If anything it has enhanced it." Now that Clinton has made the similar point in milder terms, absolving a larger proportion of Trump's supporters than Stephens did, and choosing the gentler metaphor of a basket rather than a sewer, The Wall Street Journal editorial page is scandalized that Clinton was caught "attributing hateful motives to tens of millions of Americans." Americans! Hateful! In large numbers! How dare she!

 

To the extent that Clinton's comment had any novel quality, it was her loose calculation that the bigoted make up half of Trumps support. Clinton has dutifully apologized ("I regret saying half"). And, depending on how one calculates it, this could be high. Committed white nationalists comprise a small minority of the Trump vote. On the other hand, it could also be low.

 

The overwhelming majority of Trump aficionados support his proposed ban on Muslim immigrants -- a policy many Republican elected officials opposed as an unconstitutional religious test -- while two-thirds of them register unfavorable views of American Muslims. A plurality of Republicans supported Trump's claim that a Mexican-American judge was inherently biased and therefore unfit to preside over his fraud trial. (In the same poll, a huge majority of Republicans deemed Trump's comments not racist, despite Paul Ryan's admission that it constituted a textbook example of racism.) Two-thirds of voters who like Trump consider President Obama a Muslim, and three-fifths of them believe he was not born in the United States.

 

There is a lively debate as to just what these poll findings tell us. Do Trump's supporters legitimately share all of his deranged beliefs, or are they merely signaling some kind of tribal affinity? It is a bit of a distinction without a difference. Trump's supporters are first and foremost authoritarians. They are authoritarians in the sense, identified by Stephens and many others, that they yearn for a strongman who can override the systemic constraints on presidential power. They are also authoritarians in the sense of having authoritarian personalities. Political scientists have found that Trump has capitalized on the trend toward authoritarianism in the Republican electorate, which works in concert with the growing levels of white racial resentment in the Republican electorate.

 

The combination of these sociological trends has placed Trump in his current role as tribal leader of Red America. In this role, Trump is free of any intellectual accountability so long as he stays loyal to the elemental identity markers of his tribe. He can lie blatantly, reverse himself back and forth repeatedly, or stammer incoherently without consequence because his supporters have placed complete faith in him as an authentic representative of the volk.

 

Clinton controversially described half of Trump's supporters as "irredeemable." Trump earlier this year framed the same idea in a more colorful and perhaps more damning way: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." Both statements reflect the same underlying truth: Trump enjoys a hard-core support that lies beyond persuasion, utterly immune to even the starkest factual evidence. Clinton committed a gaffe because she acknowledged a reality that literally every other person in America, including Donald Trump himself, is permitted to speak aloud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is indeed weird when a Presidential candidate is virtually forced to recant for saying something that is true and obvious to pretty much everybody.

Many are likening Clinton’s remarks to Mitt Romney’s much-talked-about “47 percent” comment from the 2012 campaign - a comment to which some attributed Romney’s loss.

 

edit%20global%20%20warming%20kid%202_zps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is indeed weird when a Presidential candidate is virtually forced to recant for saying something that is true and obvious to pretty much everybody.

 

Many Trump supporters are, in fact, hateful, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic bigots. They have made this obvious for many months now. His campaign has won the support of Americas most prominent white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The KKK and David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and perhaps the most famous face of the American white supremacy movement, have endorsed T'Rump. "I'm thinking more and more that this candidacy is a really good thing for us," Duke said.

 

Duke is the just the latest in a long line of similarly extreme figures who have warmed to Trump's candidacy. Trump enjoys the support of a who's who of contemporary white supremacist and neo-Nazi leaders and institutions. The members of what one might call Trump's white supremacist fan club include:

* The Daily Stormer, a leading neo-Nazi news site, endorsed Trump on June 28. "Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: its time to deport these people," the site said in its endorsement. It then urged white men to "vote for the first time in our lives for the one man who actually represents our interests."

* Richard Spencer, director of the National Policy Institute, which promotes the "heritage, identity, and future of European people," said that Trump was "refreshing. Trump, on a gut level, kind of senses that this is about demographics, ultimately. Were moving into a new America," Spencer said. "I don't think Trump is a white nationalist," Spencer added, but noted that Trump embodies "an unconscious vision that white people have - that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country. I think that scares us. They probably arent able to articulate it. I think it's there. I think that, to a great degree, explains the Trump phenomenon. I think he is the one person who can tap into it." The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Spencer "a suit-and-tie version of the white supremacists of old."

* Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, a Virginia-based white nationalist magazine, said: "I'm sure he would repudiate any association with people like me, but his support comes from people who are more like me than he might like to admit.[/i]"

* Michael Hill, head of the League of the South, an Alabama-based white supremacist secessionist group, said Trump was "good" for the white racist cause. "I love to see somebody like Donald Trump come along," Hill said. "Not that I believe anything that he says. But he is stirring up chaos in the GOP, and for us that is good." Hill gave a speech to a crowd of cheering followers in which he railed against the "cultural genocide" of white Americans, which he said was "merely a prelude to physical genocide."

* Brad Griffin, a member of Hills League of the South and author of the popular white supremacist blog Hunter Wallace, has written that his esteem for Trump is "soaring, and has lauded the candidate for his "hostile takeover of the Republican Party."

 

....to name just a few, symbolic of the many...

 

*****

 

And now for the meat of this OP....

 

Yes, Most Donald Trump Supporters Are Deplorable and Irredeemable

New York Magazine

By Jonathan Chait

Following the classic definition of a gaffe as a politician telling the truth, Hillary Clintons comment about Donald Trumps supporters ("just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trumps supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- you name it") was the purest and most classic example. The national media has spent a year and a quarter documenting in exquisite, redundant detail the rabid, anti-intellectual nationalistic bigotry of Trumps hard-core fanbase. But it has taken Hillary Clinton's affirmation to transform this by-now-banal observation into a scandal.

 

Back in February, Wall Street Journal editorial columnist Bret Stephens mourned that it had once been a slander that "Republicans were all closet bigots," but "Not anymore. The candidacy of Donald Trump is the open sewer of American conservatism." Stephens proceeded to argue that Trumps carefully hedged disavowal of David Duke failed to dent his support -- "If anything it has enhanced it." Now that Clinton has made the similar point in milder terms, absolving a larger proportion of Trump's supporters than Stephens did, and choosing the gentler metaphor of a basket rather than a sewer, The Wall Street Journal editorial page is scandalized that Clinton was caught "attributing hateful motives to tens of millions of Americans." Americans! Hateful! In large numbers! How dare she!

 

To the extent that Clinton's comment had any novel quality, it was her loose calculation that the bigoted make up half of Trumps support. Clinton has dutifully apologized ("I regret saying half"). And, depending on how one calculates it, this could be high. Committed white nationalists comprise a small minority of the Trump vote. On the other hand, it could also be low.

 

The overwhelming majority of Trump aficionados support his proposed ban on Muslim immigrants -- a policy many Republican elected officials opposed as an unconstitutional religious test -- while two-thirds of them register unfavorable views of American Muslims. A plurality of Republicans supported Trump's claim that a Mexican-American judge was inherently biased and therefore unfit to preside over his fraud trial. (In the same poll, a huge majority of Republicans deemed Trump's comments not racist, despite Paul Ryan's admission that it constituted a textbook example of racism.) Two-thirds of voters who like Trump consider President Obama a Muslim, and three-fifths of them believe he was not born in the United States.

 

There is a lively debate as to just what these poll findings tell us. Do Trump's supporters legitimately share all of his deranged beliefs, or are they merely signaling some kind of tribal affinity? It is a bit of a distinction without a difference. Trump's supporters are first and foremost authoritarians. They are authoritarians in the sense, identified by Stephens and many others, that they yearn for a strongman who can override the systemic constraints on presidential power. They are also authoritarians in the sense of having authoritarian personalities. Political scientists have found that Trump has capitalized on the trend toward authoritarianism in the Republican electorate, which works in concert with the growing levels of white racial resentment in the Republican electorate.

 

The combination of these sociological trends has placed Trump in his current role as tribal leader of Red America. In this role, Trump is free of any intellectual accountability so long as he stays loyal to the elemental identity markers of his tribe. He can lie blatantly, reverse himself back and forth repeatedly, or stammer incoherently without consequence because his supporters have placed complete faith in him as an authentic representative of the volk.

 

Clinton controversially described half of Trump's supporters as "irredeemable." Trump earlier this year framed the same idea in a more colorful and perhaps more damning way: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." Both statements reflect the same underlying truth: Trump enjoys a hard-core support that lies beyond persuasion, utterly immune to even the starkest factual evidence. Clinton committed a gaffe because she acknowledged a reality that literally every other person in America, including Donald Trump himself, is permitted to speak aloud.

How much money has Hillary gotten from countries, whose human rights violations take horrific to another dimension?

Liberal 101 reply - - - that's just a rumor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much money has Hillary gotten from countries, whose human rights violations take horrific to another dimension? Rational reply - - - that's just a rumor.

Gullible : easily fooled or cheated; especially : quick to believe something that is not true --- synonyms : credulous, naive, simple.

 

Imbecile : 1) a dunce; blockhead; dolt : 2) mental retardation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50 : 3) stupid; silly; absurd : 4) showing mental feebleness or incapacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ur=http://www. politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/20/reince-priebus/hillary-clinton-took-money-kings-four-countries-go/]Hillary Clinton took money from the kings of four ...[/url]

LOLOLOLOL.....you don't even bother to read the stuff your puppetmasters hand you, do you, JustStupid?

 

The Clinton Foundation received donations, not Hillary personally.....

 

What does Politifact actually say?

 

tom-halftrue.gif

 

Says Hillary Clinton took "money from kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco and Oman and Yemen."

Reince Priebus on Sunday, April 12th, 2015 in an interview

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOLOLOLOL.....you don't even bother to read the stuff your puppetmasters hand you, do you, JustStupid?

 

The Clinton Foundation received donations, not Hillary personally.....

 

What does Politifact actually say?

 

tom-halftrue.gif

 

Says Hillary Clinton took "money from kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco and Oman and Yemen."

Reince Priebus on Sunday, April 12th, 2015 in an interview

Well, if it's the Clinton Foundation & not Hillary personally, then I guess its OK.

So it would be the Clinton Foundation that accepts money from a country that executes people for witchcraft.

Glad we got that straightened out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many are likening Clinton’s remarks to Mitt Romney’s much-talked-about “47 percent” comment from the 2012 campaign - a comment to which some attributed Romney’s loss.

Indeed

"Many bamboozled and gullible rightwingnuts perhaps.....but normal people look at Trump's racist, homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted supporters and realize that Hillary was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Many bamboozled and gullible rightwingnuts perhaps.....but normal people look at Trump's racist, homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted supporters and realize that Hillary was right.

You go right along with that. I was wondering what Hillary could do to be so stupid as to lose to Trump, of all people. I thought maybe her criminal enterprise.

 

Na.

 

Maybe the fact she gets heat exhaustion on an 80 degree day.

 

Nope.

 

No, it may just be this gem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You go right along with that. I was wondering what Hillary could do to be so stupid as to lose to Trump, of all people. I thought maybe her criminal enterprise.

Na.

Maybe the fact she gets heat exhaustion on an 80 degree day.

Nope.

No, it may just be this gem.

Unfortunately for your fantasies, NuttyRetard, the only people who feel insulted by Hillary's comments are the deplorable low-life racist bigots she was referring to.....and you all weren't going to vote for her anyway.

 

It's pretty sad for most normal people to realize that there are still 20 million or so racist bigots in America.....but then, we all knew that somebody had to be voting Republican....we just didn't realize just how many alt-right retards there were floating around in hate filled confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for your fantasies, NuttyRetard, the only people who feel insulted by Hillary's comments are the deplorable low-life racist bigots she was referring to.....and you all weren't going to vote for her anyway.

 

It's pretty sad for most normal people to realize that there are still 20 million or so racist bigots in America.....but then, we all knew that somebody had to be voting Republican....we just didn't realize just how many alt-right retards there were floating around in hate filled confusion.

As I pointed out correctly in another thread, anyone who is racist is proudly so. Ever see a Klan shy from being a racist? Of course not, they wear it as a badge of honor.

 

No. Clinton is going to be reminded of those words often. She had better learn to live the taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is about the accuracy of each opinion. Honesty is about understanding one's sole position of ancestry passing through the moment here eternally adding details never assembled again as arranged before here, next.

 

Limited space, time lasts as long as each result adapts to only existing now regardless a single lifetime, single ancestry, single species, single food chain, single atmosphere, single universal positon specifically displaced currently by combining molecular migration remaining perpetually balancing what has happened so far.


Morning hater

What is that supposed to reflect artistically speaking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I pointed out correctly in another thread, anyone who is racist is proudly so. Ever see a Klan shy from being a racist? Of course not, they wear it as a badge of honor.

No. Clinton is going to be reminded of those words often. She had better learn to live the taste.

And as I pointed out and proved in that other thread, you are full of shit, nuttyretard.

 

And the nuttyretard once again tries to claim that he and many T'Rump supporters can't actually be racist because they are offended by being (correctly) labeled as racists and "true racists" would consider being called racist "a badge of honor". LOLOLOLOL.

 

In the real world....

 

Julian Bond: Racists Dont Like Being Called Racists

By Guest Contributor - Julian Bond

Politic365

May 21, 2013

Julian8.jpg

 

I have always suspected that racists didnt like being called out for their racism. Now I have proof.

 

When I told MSNBCs Thomas Roberts on May 14 that the Tea Party was the "Taliban wing of American politics," a firestorm erupted. Arguing the IRS was correct to target them for extra scrutiny, I also said "Here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political" and therefore worthy of IRS concern.

 

I was not prepared for the slew of angry emails, including two from self-identified Black people (your worst nightmare, one said) I received. Many of them suggested I leave the country, reminiscent of the "Go back to Africa" chants racist crowds of Whites shouted at Black protestors in my youth.

 

One said my advanced age -- I am 73 -- meant I would not be around to make such mischief much longer, and I should prepare for that quick eventuality.

 

A few suggested my employer fire me, not knowing that I retired from that job a year ago. Several of the messages were badly written with misspelled words, including one from a relative by marriage -- you cant choose your in-laws -- reading "Your calling folks Talabans borders on Traitorism."

This same correspondent noted I had been "head of the most classic Racist group in our country," referring to the NAACP, whose board I chaired for 11 years. Others characterized the NAACP, the nations oldest civil rights group, interracial in membership and dedicated to racial integration since 1909, in the same way.

 

After an exchange of messages with some of them, trying to convince them that while I opposed it, I didnt condemn every member of the Tea Party, the interactions became more civil and less hostile. Some even wished me well.

 

But to a person they rejected the labels "racism" and "racist," even as I thought I had proved that the Tea Party has had racist, anti-Semitic and nativist elements from its beginning until today.

 

One source is a study conducted for the NAACP by the Institute for Research and Education for Human Rights. Their study, called Tea Party Nationalism, found "Tea Party ranks to be permeated with concerns about race and national identify and other so-called social issues. In these ranks, an abiding obsession with Barack Obamas birth certificate is often a stand-in for the belief that the first black president of the United States is not a 'real American.'."

 

It says Tea Party organizations have given platforms to anti-Semites, racists and bigots and "hard-core white nationalists have been attracted" to Tea Party protests.

 

The link between the Tea Party and the Taliban was made by a prominent Republican office holder.

In 2008, the Washington Post reported that former chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee and present day Congressman Pete Sessions likened the GOP House minority to the Taliban, saying, "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a bit more because of the Taliban."

 

Just as my arguments failed to convince my correspondents, so apparently does the actual evidence.

Not the ugly racist signs and placards displayed at Tea Party rallies, not the shouts of the "n" word aimed at members of the Congressional Black Caucus, not the spittle hurled at civil rights icon and Congressman John Lewis, not the racists expelled from the Tea Party for their venom, not the association of many members with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a lineal descendant of the White Citizen Council, not the anti-gay slurs aimed at former Congressman Barney Frank (d-Mass.), not the members whose racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia should be an embarrassment -- not all or any of this could get them to acknowledge the label "racist."

 

My Black correspondents even claimed that their race prohibited them from being racists, as if skin color was a proscription against ignorance. And many of my presumably non-Black correspondents accused me of being a racist, so my race apparently offered me no protection from this evil.

 

What is the lesson here?

 

That the label "racist" has become so toxic almost everyone rejects it? That the toxicity makes the label unacceptable but its actual practice is still tolerable for many?

 

Or that it is a defense against itself? As the relative-I-try-not-to-claim wrote, "I dont know any white people who hate blacks like you advocate blacks should hate whites."

 

Or only that while the United States has made much progress in race relations, we still have a long, long way to go?

 

Julian Bond is Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP and a Professor at American University in Washington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why some are demanding that the media that Trump be called out on his lies the moment he spits one out why in the hell are those same some demanding the same of Hillary's lies?

 

Why in the hell are so damn many accepting Hillary's lies not as bad as Trump's lies? How can that be?

 

Why in the hell did so many go to the polls and vote these liars into the final stretch while at the same time applauding that all presidential

candidates are not allowed into the debates?

 

It does appear that the majority of voters are not anymore credible than the candidates the majority of voters put forward.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...