The bill in question was introduced in February of this year and was titled The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act.Which particular plan are you referring to? The Democrats and Republicans both have proposed legislation which would prevent watchlist suspects from purchasing firearms in some capacity. None of the four proposed within the past year that I'm aware of would have done anything to stop the Orlando shooter from acquiring his weapons.It also doesn't make much sense to worry so much about watchlist suspects being able to legally purchase firearms (which by the way applies to <%5 of the people on the list, since only those %5 are US citizens) when we haven't had any major incidents of people buying firearms while on the list and then going on shooting sprees.The Orlando nightclub shooter would have been prevented from obtaining firearms if the Democratic Party's plan for preventing sales to those who have been investigated by the FBI had been in effect.
It's funny that you should pick that proposed piece of legislation given that it was sponsored by Peter King, a Republican. Nonetheless, it would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the Orlando shooting, given that the shooter was taken off of the watch list months before he purchased his rifle, and before the shooting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahem... it's "embiggen". I don't know why; it's a perfectly cromulent word.I never heard the word "enbiggen" until I moved to Springfield.Fallacy. Fallacy fallacy fallacy phallacy fallacy. Fallacist's fallacy...
You ever hear a perfectly cromulent word so frequently that it now sounds weird, like you're now not quite sure it's real?
You are technically correct -- the best kind of correct.
It also doesn't make much sense to worry so much about watchlist suspects being able to legally purchase firearms (which by the way applies to <%5 of the people on the list, since only those %5 are US citizens) when we haven't had any major incidents of people buying firearms while on the list and then going on shooting sprees.The Orlando nightclub shooter would have been prevented from obtaining firearms if the Democratic Party's plan for preventing sales to those who have been investigated by the FBI had been in effect."those who have been investigated by the FBI" is far, far broader than I'd be willing to go. And I'm a gun-grabber.:)
Yeah I looked at what they were trying to pass and was like, "Really? We could actually get somewhere and this is the crap you decide to die on?"
No, I'm not. At all. I specifically referenced Everytown's claim that the "gun lobby" has state legislators pushing for all CARRY restrictions to be lifted, which is exactly what the quote from them shows. My argument is that such a claim is inconsistent with reality.
I'm done arguing this. Your stance boils down to trying to make it seem like the context isn't as clear as it is, which is pretty weak.
Again, you've yet to show this.
Fine. A 2013 survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine found overwhelming (86%) support for prohibiting individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms.
Nothing in science is 100% settled.
I'm not interested in "100% settled". I'm interested in field consensus. And I'm telling you that there isn't any on this topic. It isn't fear-mongering. It's caution. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about it.
Are you still not willing to concede that the Republican Party has an intellectual dishonesty problem unlike any seen anywhere else in the American political landscape? Of course Everytown is going to use the occasional vague wording in order to push a message. They're an advocacy group. But that's nothing compared to the display that Trump puts on every single time he's within earshot of a hot mic.
It's funny that you should pick that proposed piece of legislation given that it was sponsored by Peter King, a Republican. Nonetheless, it would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the Orlando shooting, given that the shooter was taken off of the watch list months before he purchased his rifle, and before the shooting.
The bill in question wasn't based on the terror watch list.
I think one simple statement from Hillary (and confirmation that she would do it) could actually destroy much of Trumps support and guarantee her victory in this election beyond any shadow of a doubt before it is even election day.
Supporters of Trump seem to have several things that convince them to vote for Trump.
Right now, for a majority of the Republican party that weren't that 40% that supported him in the primaries...it seems it boils down to this...
1. If Trump is elected, he will put in a conservative supreme court justice. If He is not, there will not be a conservative supreme court justice.
That is really the major platform the Republicans are running on that I've heard. No matter how much dirt they toss on Clinton, it can't compare to what Trump has said and done. Hence, they are literally using that as their point why Trump has to be chosen.
If Clinton simply said she would ensure a conservative appointee, and name such an individual, as her nomination...she'd steal that talking point. I think the Republican party would lose half of it's support for Trump within 24 hours of her confirming that her nominee to the supreme court was conservative.
Even better, if it's super conservative...it's in the pod...
She'd have it totally and completely and uncontested.
Now some democrats may find that a hard stance to take...and would rather take their chances as they are (and they are good chances), BUT, if she did this, I think it guarantees the election.
I know MANY republicans are ONLY voting Trump for that ONE and ONLY solitary reason.
They feel it is THAT important.
In truth, it isn't. The democrats lose NOTHING if she does that, it merely keeps the status quo that was already on the court. It's not like a liberal judge is being replaced by a conservative, but rather an ultra conservative would be being replaced by a conservative judge.
Furthermore, it cements the election, and later on down the line it means that (because I think there are going to be two or three or more justices needing to be replaced soon) ensures that she is there for more liberal nominations later.
Of course, the other 50% of republicans who would be won over want Trump for
2. They are against Hillary no matter what...
We can't get those.
3. They are so hardcore Republicans...they'd vote Republican no matter what
We can't get those
4. Are the same ones who voted for Trump in the primary...
Possible to get those, but for other reasons.
I think the largest chunk of Republicans and conservative leaning independents could be won over very quickly and easily by Hillary doing something like that.
I truthfully don't think it's a great loss for the Democrats to do something like that either (though it is a greater loss for the Republicans which is why they ARE making it such an issue).
I know a LOT of conservatives REALLY dislike Trump...and are really wanting a reason to vote for Clinton.
She gives them a reason like that, I'd bet we'd get half of them over night.
Related to the other issue, but not directly.
Many have gotten upset over the fact that I've stated many times that the most persecuted minority in the US are Asians (and even more specifically in many instances those from where US citizens call the Middle East though I've also learned that there's quite a HUGE amount of discrimination against ALL Asians regardless of where in Asia they are from, it's one of the most ignored racisms in the US today...in fact, there are literally gangs dedicated to robbing Asians and Only Asians in California right now...but you don't hear on the media...do you). You may not share the view I have of that persecution. It should not be ignored that Asians DO have some rather heavy discrimination in the US today...
However, and this is important...it is still FAR better than what would happen if they (well, specifically those from the Middle East in this statement) were sent out of the US and to their home nations.
I know there is a stereotype against those from the Asia, but 90% of those from there are very loyal to the US and very patriotic. They are NOT terrorist. Their loyalty might surprise many of you. Here there may be racism, but we won't be killed simply because we are LGBT or I. Here there may be discrimination, but we won't be killed simply because we didn't show proper respect to the elders at the mosque. Here there may be name calling and words, but where we have freedom of speech here, if we said something out of line there, we could be killed.
That's the scariest thing I find about Trump. What will happen to me and others like me if he's elected. He's already said some forward things in that regards, but what will happen if he takes it a step further. What happens if you aren't white or black, but another race and he takes it a step further. At best we get sent to the concentration camps like the Japanese did a mere 75 years ago...at worst, we get executed.
You may not think it's something to be worried or scared about, but it worries me. I think there are MANY decent people out there. When people say never again to the Holocaust, or in remembrance even of things done here (the Japanese internment), they don't want to repeat those things from History. I definitely don't want to see it happen.
I seriously think that many conservatives don't want Trump, and if we could just give them a reason to vote for Clinton, they would as well.
It's funny that you should pick that proposed piece of legislation given that it was sponsored by Peter King, a Republican. Nonetheless, it would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the Orlando shooting, given that the shooter was taken off of the watch list months before he purchased his rifle, and before the shooting.The bill in question wasn't based on the terror watch list.
Sure it is.
"The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism."
What other mechanism would the AG use to determine whether or not the transferee falls under those conditions? And furthermore, which part of that would have caused Omar Mateen to not be able to purchase his firearms?
I'm done arguing this. Your stance boils down to trying to make it seem like the context isn't as clear as it is, which is pretty weak.
I'm in disbelief that you're still trying to strawman me. No part of my argument ignores context, but since you're done arguing it, so am I.
Fine. A 2013 survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine found overwhelming (86%) support for prohibiting individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms.
Cool, so now we can move on to the discussion of whether or not those 86% of people are coming from a reasonable position, which I've already argued is not the case.
I'm not interested in "100% settled". I'm interested in field consensus. And I'm telling you that there isn't any on this topic. It isn't fear-mongering. It's caution. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about it.
So if there wasn't field consensus regarding whether or not the Earth revolved around the Sun, despite overwhelming evidence to support the affirmative, would it be reasonable caution to operate under the assumption that it doesn't?
Are you still not willing to concede that the Republican Party has an intellectual dishonesty problem unlike any seen anywhere else in the American political landscape? Of course Everytown is going to use the occasional vague wording in order to push a message. They're an advocacy group. But that's nothing compared to the display that Trump puts on every single time he's within earshot of a hot mic.
Your inclination to slide Everytown's inaccuracies (as I've demonstrated them to be) as "occasional vague wording" shows that you're not really willing to be intellectually honest here, yourself. To answer your question, no, I'm not willing to concede that. The Republican Party has a reprehensible history of being intellectually bankrupt, but they are in no way the sole or greatest perpetrators of such behavior.
So if there wasn't field consensus regarding whether or not the Earth revolved around the Sun, despite overwhelming evidence to support the affirmative, would it be reasonable caution to operate under the assumption that it doesn't?
Yes, actually. If the evidence were actually overwhelming, then there would be field consensus. I find it more likely that any specific individual is unable to assess the quality of the evidence than that a substantial group of the practicing experts in the field.
So I'd go with the "you're wrong about the evidence being overwhelming" answer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Clinton simply said she would ensure a conservative appointee, and name such an individual, as her nomination...she'd steal that talking point. I think the Republican party would lose half of it's support for Trump within 24 hours of her confirming that her nominee to the supreme court was conservative.
Even better, if it's super conservative...it's in the pod...
She'd have it totally and completely and uncontested.
Now some democrats may find that a hard stance to take...and would rather take their chances as they are (and they are good chances), BUT, if she did this, I think it guarantees the election.
I know MANY republicans are ONLY voting Trump for that ONE and ONLY solitary reason.
They feel it is THAT important.
You haven't learned a thing from Obama did you? Obama tried to accommodate his critics, and each of his gestures was answered by a kick in the teeth. And they don't even hate him with half of the religous ferver, the Fox machine has spent decades heating up for Clinton.
Clinton will do no one, including herself, any favors by promising a Scalia. She will make many of her allies, including ones like me who aren't happy with supporting her, who are finding difficult to trust her commitment, EXTREMELY ANGRY. Most of us won't vote for Trump, but many of us may simply wind up staying home as a result. And theJeff says it will prove to the Republicans that being obstructionist roadblocks will work because they can count on the opposition to cave.
We are long past the point where politics of appeasement will work here.
I think one simple statement from Hillary (and confirmation that she would do it) could actually destroy much of Trumps support and guarantee her victory in this election beyond any shadow of a doubt before it is even election day.
If Clinton simply said she would ensure a conservative appointee, and name such an individual, as her nomination...she'd steal that talking point. I think the Republican party would lose half of it's support for Trump within 24 hours of her confirming that her nominee to the supreme court was conservative.
Even better, if it's super conservative...it's in the pod...
She'd have it totally and completely and uncontested.
Now some democrats may find that a hard stance to take...and would rather take their chances as they are (and they are good chances), BUT, if she did this, I think it guarantees the election.
In truth, it isn't. The democrats lose NOTHING if she does that, it merely keeps the status quo that was already on the court. It's not like a liberal judge is being replaced by a conservative, but rather an ultra conservative would be being replaced by a conservative judge.
1) She's winning anyway.
2) That would absolutely confirm to any of the liberal doubters all the theories about her being practically a Republican and nearly as conservative as anyone but Trump. She'd lose all the Bernie supporters who've come over to her.
3) One of the best things about Clinton in this election (and to some extent running against Trump allows this) is that she hasn't shifted right for the general. She's running as liberal a general election campaign as she did in the primary. You're telling her to throw that away.
4) It would also be proof to the Republicans in the Senate that obstruction works and they'd be likely to try it again, should there be another opportunity to nominate. Might even make it less likely for a liberal Justice to retire, if they couldn't trust her to nominate a liberal replacement.
5) Changing the status quo of...
1. According to the LIBERAL papers she is. Other papers, including some from international (and less biased) do not. In fact, if the downward spiral she's been on continues at the same rate it has over the past few weeks, she'll lose.
2. That's not going to change anyone's mind. I already see her as more conservative than many. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Trump...let's not be ridiculous and think that those who are very liberal are going to vote for Trump because of this. They aren't voting for Clinton because she's liberal anyways, in fact, many of us already hate a LOT about her, but that's not the reason we are going to vote for her.
3. She'd still be running as a Liberal. You really expect people who support her now to go and support Trump over something like that. The liberals will vote for her, it's the conservatives and those in the middle she needs to convince.
4. They already KNOW it works. If she loses, they'll have an even STRONGER confirmation it works. This is the way she steals their thunder from them. It's also the first way to show that she's willing to compromise (something SERIOUSLY LACKING IN THE US AS OF THE PAST FEW YEARS) in order to get things done and achieve a goal.
5. It's actually been somewhat of an even court already, with Kennedy being the wild card. Many liberals just want a court that goes liberal all the time, but the SC has actually been far more neutral in most decisions (if it was a conservative court as some liberals claim, there's NO WAY IN HECK Gay Marriage would be legal today, and ACA would have been tossed out years ago). If she looses, you really might see what a conservative court truly looks like. If she wins, with as many as we may be losing soon, it could be a liberal court in a few years anyways, irregardless of who she puts in for this position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time someone yells "Embiggin" Ms Marvel gains an extra life.
...If Clinton simply said she would ensure a conservative appointee, and name such an individual, as her nomination...she'd steal that talking point.
Nope. No capitulation, no surrender, no conservative SCotUS. If the Repubs want compromise, they should start by dropping the Hastert Rule and compromising first. If they want a more conservative judge, they should OK Garland while they still have time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if we yell "Embiggin ∞", does that make her immortal? :)
So, if we yell "Embiggin ∞", does that make her immortal? :)
Not sure since it would have to be the entire multiverse for it to work I think...
Alright, we're done with this line of discussion. Arguing in circles about a completely different topic in order to try and illustrate a false equivalency to someone who doesn't want to acknowledge it really isn't worth it.
Scott,
You're only NOW realizing that? How long have you been on the internets? (Please note that was sarcasm not hostility, nor was it meant as a put down/insult to you)
Scott,
You're only NOW realizing that? How long have you been on the internets? (Please note that was sarcasm not hostility, nor was it meant as a put down/insult to you)
Hope springs eternal.
Quicklings spring attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm done arguing this. Your stance boils down to trying to make it seem like the context isn't as clear as it is, which is pretty weak.I'm in disbelief that you're still trying to strawman me. No part of my argument ignores context, but since you're done arguing it, so am I.
For what it's worth, after reading your back and forth (and please don't take this as an invitation to resume it), my opinion is that you did identify some inaccuracies or at the most generous possible reading, stretches, in that website, but I also think that you failed to demonstrate they were as, or even nearly as, dishonest as Trump.
It does seem, for example, that the carry-anywhere claim was hyperbole. On the other hand, I don't think you demonstrated dishonesty in the thread dealing with the "gap" related to suspected terrorists. Your disagreement seemed to boil down to calling it a loophole. You may disagree with calling it that, but it's not dishonest to do so. I think someone with different views than you could quite honestly consider the fact that terrorist watchlist suspects can buy guns to be a loophole. Even if we accept the argument that the watchlist is flawed - which I think it is - someone might still consider it a loophole and think that the proper way to go about closing said loophole involves improving the management of the list.
In any case I didn't see anything that rises to the same level of dishonesty that Trump demonstrates. Trump is setting the record straight on Hillary's false claims that Obama wasn't born here, for example. That is far beyond hyperbole or stretching. It is stunningly full of s*~%.
You've also got only a handful of examples (some of which, as above, seemed to represent honest disagreement rather than dishonesty in your opponent), compared to the many more in the speech that we were comparing to.
Scott,
You're only NOW realizing that? How long have you been on the internets? (Please note that was sarcasm not hostility, nor was it meant as a put down/insult to you)
Hope springs eternal.
Quicklings spring attack.
Hope maybe but this is the internets. It's like that meme with Borimir, one does not simply walk into it with eternal hope.
Also why are you having quicklings attack me?
Scott,
You're only NOW realizing that? How long have you been on the internets? (Please note that was sarcasm not hostility, nor was it meant as a put down/insult to you)
Hope springs eternal.
Quicklings spring attack.
Hope maybe but this is the internets. It's like that meme with Borimir, one does not simply walk into it with eternal hope.
Also why are you having quicklings attack me?
Readied actions with nets. Pretty soon, you're loaded down with tasty quicklings.
Turin
...I'm not sure how I feel about that....
Turin
...I'm not sure how I feel about that....
True... eat a dozen quicklings, and you'll still feel hungry.
No I'm not eating fey, Drah. I'd much rather eat Kappa.
Your recipes are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter: Iron Chef Absalom.
Mine or the other guys?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is difficult to accept as anything remotely relevant that "if many people call you X, you are X". First, whatever you do today, whatever opinion you may express, there is always someone who will call you racist/arrogant/retard/etc for it. Second, rhetorics are pretty uniform today, as in people consciously and systematically trying to win points against others by accusing them of being the above things. This robs the original statement of the idea that the many people calling you X do so independently. Third, huge numbers of people think lots of wrong things. Many Americans (30% of republican primary voters) apparently want America to bomb Agrabah, for example. We all have the right to expect a bit more from people who take it upon themselves to judge others. Fourth, it is a direct example of the bandwagon fallacy. Fifth, billions and billions of flies can't be wrong - eat s~!+.
The NRA has supported a number of background checks and other policies well short of full legalization of everything. Why are you lying?
Hey. Whoa. Whoa whoa. Let's dial it the f%#@ back here, guys.
Oh, wait, there's been two pages since this post. Shoulda refreshed first.
...still, guys, let's not say stuff like this. Nobody here is out to lie. We all have strong opinions. When I say Ted Cruz is an Old One formerly chained deep within the mountains of Canada and recently set loose by an unwise Palin attempting to find her way to the Republican National Convention, that's not a lie, it's an opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...still, guys, let's not say stuff like this. Nobody here is out to lie. We all have strong opinions. When I say Ted Cruz is an Old One formerly chained deep within the mountains of Canada and recently set loose by an unwise Palin attempting to find her way to the Republican National Convention, that's not a lie, it's an opinion.
an opinion that's going to get you sued by the Old Ones AND Canada for defamation of character.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is difficult to accept as anything remotely relevant that "if many people call you X, you are X". First, whatever you do today, whatever opinion you may express, there is always someone who will call you racist/arrogant/retard/etc for it. Second, rhetorics are pretty uniform today, as in people consciously and systematically trying to win points against others by accusing them of being the above things. This robs the original statement of the idea that the many people calling you X do so independently. Third, huge numbers of people think lots of wrong things. Many Americans (30% of republican primary voters) apparently want America to bomb Agrabah, for example. We all have the right to expect a bit more from people who take it upon themselves to judge others. Fourth, it is a direct example of the bandwagon fallacy. Fifth, billions and billions of flies can't be wrong - eat s*#&.
And yet for all that couching, being called racist by many different, independent groups over an extended period of time remains an incredibly reliable predictor of actual racism.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this is a silly facet of the discussion for us to fixate on. The evidence for Trump being racist lies in his deeds, in his lies about "thousands" of New Jersey Muslims cheering in the streets after 9/11. He's a bigot. That everyone calls him a bigot is just additional evidence.
And yet for all that couching, being called racist by many different, independent groups over an extended period of time remains an incredibly reliable predictor of actual racism.
If the allegations have merit they should be pretty superflous to the evidence for them.
Honestly, at this point I think Trump just coming out of the closet as a racist can do nothing but garner him more support from the Right.
Honestly, at this point I think Trump just coming out of the closet as a racist can do nothing but garner him more support from the Right.
There are more people that are voting for him with the willing denial that he's a racist, people he'd lose if they couldn't do that.
Honestly, at this point I think Trump just coming out of the closet as a racist can do nothing but garner him more support from the Right.There are more people that are voting for him with the willing denial that he's a racist, people he'd lose if they couldn't do that.
Why take a stance when you can take all the stances and let your followers pick and choose which ones they like and which ones they filter through their confirmation bias?
Reminds me of this (going from memory here):
Hilary Clinton is a Bigot.
YEAH *clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*...now is that good or bad?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is difficult to accept as anything remotely relevant that "if many people call you X, you are X". First, whatever you do today, whatever opinion you may express, there is always someone who will call you racist/arrogant/retard/etc for it. Second, rhetorics are pretty uniform today, as in people consciously and systematically trying to win points against others by accusing them of being the above things. This robs the original statement of the idea that the many people calling you X do so independently. Third, huge numbers of people think lots of wrong things. Many Americans (30% of republican primary voters) apparently want America to bomb Agrabah, for example. We all have the right to expect a bit more from people who take it upon themselves to judge others. Fourth, it is a direct example of the bandwagon fallacy. Fifth, billions and billions of flies can't be wrong - eat s*#&.And yet for all that couching, being called racist by many different, independent groups over an extended period of time remains an incredibly reliable predictor of actual racism.
And yet, all you do is defend using the bandwagon fallacy as a predictor. Which is sort of by definition useless. Also, I would hesitate to claim the racist-calling groups different or independent of one another. And finally, you do not offer any sort of evidence for your theory.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look at what the minorities are actually doing.
...
Of course, if you're mostly worried about racism against whites, then Trump's your man.
Yep. Trump has managed to alienate majorities of;
African Americans
Middle-Easterners
Hispanics
Asians
Women
Muslims
LGBT individuals
People with disabilities
Highly educated whites
He gets overwhelming support from the 'white rights' and 'mens rights' movements... probably as a direct corollary to his rejection by those other groups.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Just wow.
It would be off-topic, but I'd prefer going back to the "Zombies > Electables" we had going for a minute.
Good luck, and God bless, folks; I'm out.
]As I said before, if racism is a thing you're concerned about, forget endorsements, forget the bandwagon, forget the accusations, even forget the little check boxes of racist acts you think prove both sides are racist.
Look at what the minorities are actually doing. If black people are polling overwhelmingly for Clinton, that's a pretty good sign they're not worried about her racism - and you shouldn't be either.
If latinos are polling overwhelmingly for Clinton, that's a pretty good sign they're not worried about her racism - and you shouldn't be either.
...And that's exactly how we got the '94 crime bill, the '96 welfare reform bill and, to jump forward a little in time, the highest number of deportations under any president ever.
Just don't worry!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for those who have stated that campaign promises and party platforms don't matter:
In 1984, the political scientist Michael Krukones tabulated the campaign pledges of all the Presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Jimmy Carter and found that they achieved seventy-three per cent of what they promised. Most recently, PolitiFact, a nonpartisan fact-checking site, has assessed more than five hundred promises made by Barack Obama during his campaigns and found that, to the irritation of his opponents, he has accomplished at least a compromised version of seventy per cent of them.
It's far from perfect, but there's enough there in the DNC platform and Clinton's campaigning (both of which Sanders influenced) that I think a Clinton presidency can effect some real meaningful progressive change, even in the face of an intransigent Congress.
Unfortunately, that quote above comes from this horrifying The New Yorker article: "President Trump’s First Term" ("His campaign tells us a lot about what kind of Commander-in-Chief he would be.")
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]As I said before, if racism is a thing you're concerned about, forget endorsements, forget the bandwagon, forget the accusations, even forget the little check boxes of racist acts you think prove both sides are racist.
Look at what the minorities are actually doing. If black people are polling overwhelmingly for Clinton, that's a pretty good sign they're not worried about her racism - and you shouldn't be either.
If latinos are polling overwhelmingly for Clinton, that's a pretty good sign they're not worried about her racism - and you shouldn't be either....And that's exactly how we got the '94 crime bill, the '96 welfare reform bill and, to jump forward a little in time, the highest number of deportations under any president ever.
Just don't worry!
At the time, Clinton was considered the most african american friendly president ever. Ditto the most gay friendly.
Now there is considerable criticism of his crime and welfare changes, 'don't ask / don't tell', the 'Defense of Marriage Act', et cetera... but all of those things were largely viewed as necessary compromises by the impacted communities at the time.
The simple fact is that all of the 'bad' things now being laid at (Bill) Clinton's feet were cases where the unalterred Republican version would have been vastly worse. This criticism has a huge dose of historical revisionism and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I know this because I actually was outraged by many of these Clinton compromises at the time (especially the disgusting 'Defense of Bigotry Act') but friends actually impacted by them consistently, and compellingly, argued that the alternative would be much worse.
|
So for those who have stated that campaign promises and party platforms don't matter:
In 1984, the political scientist Michael Krukones tabulated the campaign pledges of all the Presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Jimmy Carter and found that they achieved seventy-three per cent of what they promised. Most recently, PolitiFact, a nonpartisan fact-checking site, has assessed more than five hundred promises made by Barack Obama during his campaigns and found that, to the irritation of his opponents, he has accomplished at least a compromised version of seventy per cent of them.It's far from perfect, but there's enough there in the DNC platform and Clinton's campaigning (both of which Sanders influenced) that I think a Clinton presidency can effect some real meaningful progressive change, even in the face of an intransigent Congress.
Unfortunately, that quote above comes from this horrifying The New Yorker article: "President Trump’s First Term" ("His campaign tells us a lot about what kind of Commander-in-Chief he would be.")
First Act: Rename Commander-in-Chief to Emperor. He would go for God but, ya'know, "humble".
Bill was elected with an overwhelming amount of the black vote; Obama with the Latino vote.
Just don't worry!
Anyway, I don't have time to dally today, alas. Gotta go build for our meeting on Saturday.
See ya!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, one more:
This criticism has a huge dose of historical revisionism and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I remember selling socialist papers with articles against all that shiznit, so I'm afraid the argument of "historical revisionism" doesn't hold much water with me.
Not my fault the rest of you took two decades to catch up.