Milo Yiannopoulos fursona.

[#00Buck]

35 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

My response was a criticism of the idea that the presentation of ideas is equally or more consequential then the input and process of their composition. How people react emotionally to a statement or position is a crude way to judge it's value; where one person finds Milo insulting and callous, another person can find him humorous. If this wasn't true he wouldn't be a controversial figure, he'd just be universally reviled or celebrated.

I find it frightening how common it is to see these massive text essays about how off-putting his tone was without any attempts to address the truth value of his statements in a dispassionate manner.

Yeh, tell em Zara.

You're black.

You're gay. 

You're against the nerd essay. 

[Troj]

14 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

You've got it backwards, the institutions that compose the social sciences are the ones at odds with empiricism, empiricism not at odds with social science.

You can disagree with the statement all you like, but it's reflected in the results of the disciplines. Social scientists produce conjectures and the physical sciences produce knowledge.

I think that compassion and feelings have a place in persuasive argumentation if they aren't used in an exploitative way, but I take issue with the tendency to take shortcuts straight to criticizing rhetoric without first addressing the substance of an argument deeper than taking a generalization at face value and saying "not all X" and expecting the inherent complexity of the universe to nullify any and all statements that are inconvenient.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

The social sciences have a hard row to hoe, because studying a person or a group of people is not like studying an ear of corn, a block of limestone, or a hydrogen atom.

When social scientists treat their subjects like rocks or ears of corn, they get caught in some awkward binds, because rocks or ears of corn aren't going to talk to each other about the study over Facebook.

So, there's definitely a major push right now to make psychology more rigorous and empirically-validated, and that involves glossing over, trying to control for, or trying to quantify some of the more random and ethereal "human stuff," like the vague quality of the relationship between a therapist and client.

I don't want to get into a fight over the difference between "conjecture" and "knowledge," since I'd argue the social sciences have contributed knowledge about how societies and people function, and how they react in different circumstances.

The hard reality is that we're often dealing with variables and considerations that are harder to demonstrate or prove empirically, especially when we're trying to figure out what people or systems "should" do morally, socially, or practically.

Someone can have all of their practical facts down cold, and still be ethically or emotionally retarded.

[Zaraphayx]

2 minutes ago, Troj said:

Someone can have all of their practical facts down cold, and still be ethically or emotionally retarded.

You've got a point there. I'm right about everything but I'm an amoral, feral wretch.

[Saxon]

Social scientists should not be in the business of trying to demonstrate the superiority of their moral outlook in the first place, because any failure of an attempt to demonstrate a moral truth will not be perceived as a failure of the moral belief to hold true, but a failure of reality to conform to the moral belief. :\

 

[Troj]

Oh, don't be dramatic. I'm not calling you an amoral wretch.

It's very possible to abuse facts for nefarious purposes. It doesn't make the facts less factual, but it does mean that they aren't value-neutral.

It's possible to have all of the available facts, and still be caught in a moral or practical dilemma about how to apply or prioritize the facts.

It's possible to lack the tools to access or measure pieces of information.

My main problem with the alt-right is that they're often very skilled at pretending to be objective and rational, and selectively applying facts and figures to create an underlying moral argument that privileges the status quo over the rights and needs of individual people, especially "weirdos" and minorities.

It doesn't make their individual facts and figures automatically wrong, but it does mean that you have to be careful about just following along with the logic train they're creating.

Oh, and if we want to talk tu quoque, "You wrote a wall of text!" definitely fits that bill. Lots of people here love them a wall o text, and I tend to write 'em when I've worried that I've been unclear, or I'm confused about what the disagreement is over. I didn't realize people though I was saying that I'd love Milo if not for his icky presentation.

[Zaraphayx]

1 minute ago, Troj said:

Oh, don't be dramatic. I'm not calling you an amoral wretch.

It's very possible to abuse facts for nefarious purposes. It doesn't make the facts less factual, but it does mean that they aren't value-neutral.

It's possible to have all of the available facts, and still be caught in a moral or practical dilemma about how to apply or prioritize the facts.

It's possible to lack the tools to access or measure pieces of information.

My main problem with the alt-right is that they're often very skilled at pretending to be objective and rational, and selectively applying facts and figures to create an underlying moral argument that privileges the status quo over the rights and needs of individual people, especially "weirdos" and minorities.

It doesn't make their facts and figures automatically wrong, but it does mean that you have to be careful about following them too far down their logical rabbit hole.

 

Calm down, I was making a joke. Something I do far more often than what I'm doing now.

[Troj]

Oh, sorry. Hard to read humor online; my bad.

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Troj said:

Oh, don't be dramatic. I'm not calling you an amoral wretch.

It's very possible to abuse facts for nefarious purposes. It doesn't make the facts less factual, but it does mean that they aren't value-neutral.

It's possible to have all of the available facts, and still be caught in a moral or practical dilemma about how to apply or prioritize the facts.

It's possible to lack the tools to access or measure pieces of information.

My main problem with the alt-right is that they're often very skilled at pretending to be objective and rational, and selectively applying facts and figures to create an underlying moral argument that privileges the status quo over the rights and needs of individual people, especially "weirdos" and minorities.

It doesn't make their facts and figures automatically wrong, but it does mean that you have to be careful about following them too far down their logical rabbit hole.

 

 

I think people would find it more convincing if you specified examples, furthermore given that many on the Alt right want a giant friggin wall across their continent, I don't think they want the 'status quo' at all.

 

[Troj]

Building a wall is meant to keep out corrupting influences that would disrupt "the system," and turn established hierarchies and rules upside-down. So, walls can definitely be used to enforce the status quo.

I'm confused about what the problem is here. People seemed fine when I said that Milo seemed like a smarmy punk who is coyly playing to an audience that includes some rather wacky people, and doesn't seem to care about the consequences. Then, I bother to watch more in-depth stuff with the guy, and have to admit that he's not entirely wrong and terrible about everything, but that his worldview, style, and M.O. still bother me, because he lacks basic compassion for people. So, my previous attitude was based even more on aesthetics than my current attitude, actually.

I just don't like or trust the overall ethos of Breitbart, even when they present sensible (on the surface) arguments and facts, and even when Milo is pleasant and affable.

I read Taki Mag, too, and some of their facts and observations are also correct--but, again, if you dig under the surface and connect the dots, their ideology is not something I'm willing to climb on board whole-hog with.

I agree with Zara and Saxon that we need to be willing to dig beneath aesthetics to the real meat--but, it's perfectly fine to dislike someone or something's aesthetics in their own right, too, or have problems with both the meat and its presentation.

Incidentally, I don't see compassion as just being about aesthetics or presentation. (After all, someone can have a nice or pleasant presentation, and still lack compassion.) Compassion informs how people operate in the real world; how they apply and prioritize theories, facts, and information. Compassion determines whether someone sees a cat as a collection of atoms, or as "Muffy." So, for me, it's not a trivial thing when someone seems to lack empathy or compassion, especially for underdogs.

[#00Buck]

Milo can be sweet and considerate too...

 

[Saxon]

9 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Milo can be sweet and considerate too...

 

I watched that video yesterday. I was disappointing by the number of people in the comment section criticising the protestor's character, because I think that having the guts to protest alone is admirable.

 

[Troj]

Yup--even when I think a particular lone protester is nuts or wrong, I still have to give them props for having the courage to stand alone. How is that a sign of bad character? Were the commenters mad that he refused to talk?

Well, and bringing the protester water was a nice gesture on Milo's part, too. I'm sure people can/would argue about why he did it, but it's a considerate thing to do, regardless.

 

[#00Buck]

Milo likes to grab the discussion about trump in a certain way...

 

[Troj]

This guy (and yes, he's a cross-dresser who identifies as male) pretty much nailed what I've previously tried awkwardly to describe. This is a clear, clean way to conceptualize things. As a bonus, now I have a better way to explain why I find so many feminists tiresome, too:

 

[#00Buck]

Well I'm going to reply with a video from someone who also wears women's clothing and has a penis. 

I think she sums up why I find feminism so tiresome too.

 

 

[Saxon]

3 hours ago, Troj said:

This guy (and yes, he's a cross-dresser who identifies as male) pretty much nailed what I've previously tried awkwardly to describe. This is a clear, clean way to conceptualize things. As a bonus, now I have a better way to explain why I find so many feminists tiresome, too:

 

This video would be much better without the periodic belching, and I don't agree with everything said, but that aside I watched some of contrapoint's other videos and I think this one is very relevant, especially for users on this forum, many of whom support Trump.

 

I think a lot of users here have dismissed the allegations that trump has racist attitudes and is willing to exploit racist attitudes in voters for political gain as 'just the left being reactionary', but this video carefully list and explains all of the examples and compares Donald's behaviour with other Republicans who are keen to disavow and condemn racism, rather than profit from it.

 

 

[#00Buck]

Here's Milo explaining why nobody likes Hillary.

 

[Troj]

4 hours ago, Saxon said:

This video would be much better without the periodic belching, and I don't agree with everything said, but that aside I watched some of contrapoint's other videos and I think this one is very relevant, especially for users on this forum, many of whom support Trump.

I think a lot of users here have dismissed the allegations that trump has racist attitudes and is willing to exploit racist attitudes in voters for political gain as 'just the left being reactionary', but this video carefully list and explains all of the examples and compares Donald's behaviour with other Republicans who are keen to disavow and condemn racism, rather than profit from it.

What it comes down to, I think, is that a lot of people are too young and too sheltered to really grok how dangerous demagogues can be, how their emotions are being manipulated in various ways this election season, and how all of this goes much deeper than just "offensive" or "mean" words that old fuddy-duddies don't like only because they're faggy prudes.

 

[#00Buck]

25 minutes ago, Troj said:

What it comes down to, I think, is that a lot of people are too young and too sheltered to really grok how dangerous demagogues can be, how their emotions are being manipulated in various ways this election season, and how all of this goes much deeper than just "offensive" or "mean" words that old fuddy-duddies don't like only because they're faggy prudes.

 

By people saying "Trump is mean" as a reason to vote for Hillary?

[Saxon]

7 hours ago, Troj said:

What it comes down to, I think, is that a lot of people are too young and too sheltered to really grok how dangerous demagogues can be, how their emotions are being manipulated in various ways this election season, and how all of this goes much deeper than just "offensive" or "mean" words that old fuddy-duddies don't like only because they're faggy prudes.

 

It is a shame that the debate about style and character has eclipsed policy.
Donald Trump wants to bring back torture, pull out of the Paris climate deal and reinvigourate the declining coal industry. 
If you actually just read his policies almost none of them are good, many of them aren't even viable and he barely ever provides any idea of how they could be achieved.

This is literally what he said when pressed on his healthcare policy:

"We have to come up, and we can come up with many different plans. In fact, plans you don't even know about will be devised because we're going to come up with plans, -- health care plans -- that will be so good. And so much less expensive both for the country and for the people. And so much better."
It's like a child wrote it. :\
He furthermore donates money to charities which try to spread the myth that vaccines cause Autism.
...and many of his policies indicate he doesn't know anything about the situation he aims to remedy at all, for example describing the USA as 'the nation with the highest taxes' when even a brief wikipedia check would immediately show otherwise.

...but worst of all, he wants to 'combat legal pornography ( as well as illegal pornography) '. Furries supporting Trump...what are you doing? D:

 

[Troj]

He's also said that women who get abortions should be punished.

Not only did he support torture, but he said we should do waterboarding even if doesn't work, because they "have it coming." He also said we should go after the loved ones of terrorists, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

He has indeed promoted anti-vaxx bullshit on his Twitter. Didn't know he'd donated to anti-vaxx causes, though, so that's icing on that cake.

John Oliver covered why the Wall would be an infeasible, stupid waste of money.

He's talked about repealing Obamacare, and Saxon, you've just nicely illustrated that he clearly doesn't understand how the health care system works, so he doesn't even understand what he's repealing.

If we want to talk about charity, he used charity money to buy a painting of himself, and hang it in one of his restaurants, and used over $200,000 of charity money to fight legal battles.

He's made idiotic remarks about NAFTA that shows he doesn't understand it, misinformed remarks about trade and commerce that show he doesn't understand the finer points of all that, and his frequent accusations that Clinton should've passed these laws and fixed those problems show that he doesn't understand what senators do or what the secretary of state does.

For all his talk about Chiiiiiina, he hasn't been shy about talking about his foreign contracts in places like Dubai and yes, Chiiiiina. He goes where the deals are.

I haven't followed it, but I have heard some kerfuffle about Trump's stance on maternity leave. I remember reading that people who worked under Ivanka said they had to fight for maternity leave and benefits. I'd have to look into that more, but it doesn't sound promising.

He's filed for bankruptcy at least four times by my count, has gotten around $580 million in tax subsidies from New York, and Robert Reich basically explained to a Trump voter how Trump could've been worth over four billion dollars today if he'd invested his money in an index fund. So, he's a shitty businessman.

The people he's named as advisors and supporters are all toadies and sycophants as far as the eye can see. I haven't heard him name-drop anybody with real credentials, and he's previously referred to himself as his primary advisor.

People are understandably concerned about "political insiders" reinforcing the status quo and continuing business as usual, but someone has to at least understand business as usual in order to avoid fucking up the delicate, complex system we have.

Also, when you think of voting for president, you always have to consider the Supreme Court. If any of the justices were to retire or die in the near future, I don't want to think of who Trump would consider nominating.

[swooz]

I hate both candidates. Both of them are scumbags.

[#00Buck]

I love how people say Trump is a liar and then they get upset about all the things he says he is going to do.

If he's a liar he won't actually do any of those things.

So people must actually believe that he's honest.

Even though they say he's a liar. 

[Saxon]

4 hours ago, swooz said:

I hate both candidates. Both of them are scumbags.

In my humble view as a no good foreigner and eminent furfag, the USA is presented with a choice between Hilary, a maniacal schemer, but one who can at least manage the system competently, and Donald, who lives in a parallel tin-foil hat reality where the USA is the most taxed nation on earth, women deserve to be punished for terminations and the MMR vaccine causes autism. 

It's like deciding who's going to perform your operation; the doctor who once had an affair with your wife, or a mental patient who thinks he's the next messiah.

[#00Buck]

Milo says free speech is what makes America great and he's right. 

 

[Rassah]

 

Quote

pretty much nailed what I've previously tried awkwardly to describe.

Did... did she just insult liberals by saying they can be insulted by any 12 year old with a twitter account?

 

Btw, I don't agree with everything he says here (specifically I'm not against mixing cultures), but https://www.thenation.com/article/an-interview-with-the-most-hated-man-on-the-internet/

On 10/14/2016 at 1:43 PM, Saxon said:

In my humble view as a no good foreigner and eminent furfag, the USA is presented with a choice between Hilary, a maniacal schemer, but one who can at least manage the system competently, and Donald, who lives in a parallel tin-foil hat reality where the USA is the most taxed nation on earth, women deserve to be punished for terminations and the MMR vaccine causes autism.

Well, what everyone always forgets come election season is that the Senate and House make all the rules, not the president who actually don't have a lot of power, so none of what they claim or promise is likely to actually happen. At most we're picking which side of the Senate will get to pass laws.

[Crazy Lee]

Hmm. Wonder if I should send this sticker to Milo. Wonder if he'd appreciate it.

[Troj]

^^^Good example of why I said "Yes, but," when Milo called for an end to "Identity Politics."

Yes, I'd like people to ultimately transcend rooting their worth and their identity in their race, gender, sexuality, and the like. I don't even think it's healthy to root your too much of your identity in your politics or religion.

But, just because you don't take your status or identity seriously doesn't mean that another person won't.

Gay people can stop rooting their identity in being gay when homophobes stop holding their sexuality against them.

Made me think of this:

 

[Zeke]

On 10/14/2016 at 3:44 AM, Saxon said:

Furries supporting Trump...what are you doing? D:

Good-bye Red lantern

RIP Red Lantern ??/??/2017

9 hours ago, Rassah said:

 

Well, what everyone always forgets come election season is that the Senate and House make all the rules, not the president who actually don't have a lot of power, so none of what they claim or promise is likely to actually happen. At most, we're picking which side of the Senate will get to pass laws.

 

It depends on which votes the highest.
Anyways, if he does, he can always push through executive orders and they do not require Congressional approval and can't really be overturned. You can cut funding to it, but even then the President can veto the defunding bill. 

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, Crazy Lee said:

Hmm. Wonder if I should send this sticker to Milo. Wonder if he'd appreciate it.

He already posted that on his Facebook a few days ago. 

[Crazy Lee]

6 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

He already posted that on his Facebook a few days ago. 

What was his reaction to it though?

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Crazy Lee said:

What was his reaction to it though?

It's an anti-trump sticker that was designed by leftists. 

So really his reaction and the comments were pretty much along the lines of most Trump supporters actually are fine with gay people. 

After all the commenters are all Milo fans so of course they're okay with gay people. 

[Crazy Lee]

20 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

It's an anti-trump sticker that was designed by leftists. 

So really his reaction and the comments were pretty much along the lines of most Trump supporters actually are fine with gay people. 

After all the commenters are all Milo fans so of course they're okay with gay people. 

So, see something you disagree with, blame the other side. I mean, odds are this is more likely one trump supporter that doesn't like the "Gay agenda" rather than a liberal pretending to be a trump supporter, but whatever. It's always the other side's fault. Always their giant conspiracy.

And of course Milo's followers would be okay with the gays. Or they wouldn't follow him.

[#00Buck]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

So, see something you disagree with, blame the other side. I mean, odds are this is more likely one trump supporter that doesn't like the "Gay agenda" rather than a liberal pretending to be a trump supporter, but whatever. It's always the other side's fault. Always their giant conspiracy.

And of course Milo's followers would be okay with the gays. Or they wouldn't follow him.

Currently nobody really knows who made it only that apparently you can buy the sticker on the internet from some sticker store in the USA. 

I don't think it's anyone pretending to be a Trump supporter. I think it's quite clearly an anti-Trump sticker. 

[Troj]

It's certainly within the realm of possibility that it's an anti-Trump sticker, but a sticker like that is likely to get your ass kicked by someone who didn't realize that you were being "ironic" or satirical. If you're going to go the satire or irony route, it has to be even more over-the-top to be effective.

But, given the shit I've seen from some Trump supporters, it's also certainly within the realm of possibility that this is a pro-Trump sticker. Trump's whole schtick has brought some very angry people out of the woodwork, and they're using his campaign to channel and express their personal longstanding beefs.

[#00Buck]

8 minutes ago, Troj said:

It's certainly within the realm of possibility that it's an anti-Trump sticker, but a sticker like that is likely to get your ass kicked by someone who didn't realize that you were being "ironic" or satirical. If you're going to go the satire or irony route, it has to be even more over-the-top to be effective.

But, given the shit I've seen from some Trump supporters, it's also certainly within the realm of possibility that this is a pro-Trump sticker. Trump's whole schtick has brought some very angry people out of the woodwork, and they're using his campaign to channel and express their personal longstanding beefs.

The problem is Trump has made a huge deal out of supporting Kaitlin Jenner including chiming in on the washroom issue and asking her to come to a Trump hotel and use any washroom they want, which they did on video. His biggest booster is an openly gay man who exclusively has sex with black men. 

The only people who say Trump is racist or homophobic are leftists. It does not make sense for it to be a pro-Trump sticker. 

[Saxon]

Donald Trump's views on gay people have been fickle in the past.

He supports making crimes based on attacking somebody's sexual orientation a hate crime, but at the same time he welcomed the North-Carolina House Bill 2, that removed laws which penalised discrimination based on sexuality. Incidentally that law mandates that transsexuals use the bathroom of their birth sex, which makes it puzzling that he is inviting transsexual celebrities to use his toilets.
He's supportive of letting gay people serve openly in the military, but he also doesn't want same sex marriage to be legal and would consider appointing a supreme court judge 'in order to overturn that'.

and, of course, all pornography should be illegal. Hoorah. C:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

I actually get the impression that his political beliefs are so poorly organised that he doesn't actually have any idea what he's doing or which causes he has already declared allegiance to, and that's why his views are full of inconsistencies, saying one thing and then simply doing another.

Milo says free speech is what makes America great and he's right. 

 

Having pledged to expand government surveillance of American citizens, make organised protest illegal, make extreme views a grounds for deportation from the USA, ban head scarfs and end violence in video games (Has he been dating Anita Sarkissian?)

Those are not policies that promote free speech, and talk about a 'warning from Europe'. European countries like France and Belgium have had long standing debates about banning head scarfs, and France has specifically banned them and then attempted to ban swimsuits that were 'too modest'.

If you want to be warned by failed policies in European countries, why would you then propose doing the exact same thing that they tried already?

 

[Troj]

The goal posts moved a little here, since I said that Trump is flirting with a lot of angry (and often very bigoted) people, and Buck replied that only leftists are accusing Trump of being homophobic or racist.

I've said in the past that I wasn't sure if Trump was an actual dyed-in-the-wool racist or not---though, at this stage in the game, I feel more confident saying he seems to hold some pretty racist views--but he's done enough winking and nudging at racists that even motherfucking Stormfront took notice. To wit: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-helping-white-supremacist-website-2015-12

Like Saxon said, he's been flaky on LGBT issues. I think other prominent Republicans have consistently been even more openly nasty and crazy on that front, actually, so Trump seems mild by comparison. Oh goody.

I'd say it's pretty clear that he doesn't have a lot of respect for women, and he's not particularly sympathetic towards people with disabilities.

Regardless of what Trump actually believes or thinks--and sometimes, I don't even think he knows--he's consistently employed rhetoric and dog whistles that appeal to "those sorts of people." Often, I've noticed that people on both sides of the fence project their fears, beliefs, and hopes onto Trump in ways that are equal parts telling and ominous.

There are also a lot of fundamentally-decent-but-naive people who are charmed by Trump's bluster, wealth, and unpolished, unfiltered, sincere-seeming working-class style, and hope their lives might improve in the process of him overturning the political apple cart. They generally aren't dyed-in-the-wool racists or bigots--in fact, many are legitimately and sincerely outraged and offended by overt bigotry or hatred--but they often harbor negative or stereotypical implicit beliefs about minorities, so they often miss (and/or perpetrate) more subtle forms and expressions of bias and prejudice.

Thinking about the alt-right, I think there may actually come a day when a sprinkle of their ideas and their anarchic, irreverent brand of humor will be necessary to re-balance society if it leans too far in the direction of directionless, disorganized, and cacophonous multiculturalism; Puritanical political correctness; humorless hyper-sensitivity; and/or myopic, naive Islamophilia. 

That said, I think the people who are charmed or intrigued by the more rational arguments, legitimate observations, from and/or "punk rock renegade" aspects of the alt-right are often oblivious to or in denial about some of the more dangerous people and ideas living under that same tent, which would happily marginalize minorities, pave over civil liberties, or treat people like shit in the name of "smashing political correctness" or "protecting our culture."

Relevant:

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18969/donald-trump-rally-protesters-chicago-uic

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-trump-effect-is-contaminating-our-kids--and-could-resonate-for-years-to-come/2016/03/07/594a7f46-e47a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

 

 

 

 

[#00Buck]

Trump isn't racist. 

Hillary is racist. She called black people "Super Predators"

She's also anti gay marriage. 

But hey, why let facts get in the way of things. 

[Gamedog]

She's also shown to just call for the deaths of people willy-nilly like Assange but whatever 

[Saxon]

@#00Buck At best you would have proven that both candidates are racist.

Showing that Mary likes cake doesn't show that Robert dislikes cake.

 

I think everyone already knows that a lot of Democrats who opposed same sex marriage 12 years ago, are in favour of it now, for example Barack Obama.
Troj's point is that Donald and much of his party still oppose same sex marriage, which is disappointing.

[Troj]

Bill Clinton also signed the DOMA.

So, yep, the Clintons have a problematic, checkered history when it comes to sexuality and race.

But, Obama was also lukewarm about gay marriage in the beginning. Lots of Democrats were once lukewarm or mealy-mouthed on the subject, without being as openly anti-gay as the GOP.

Hillary Clinton has apologized for her "super-predators" comment, and has recently expressed support for gay marriage and gay rights.

The criticisms related to Benghazi, emails, private interests, Wall Street, and warmongering are fair, and they apply equally (at least) to many other politicians.

Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing

It doesn't make it "right" when a politician does these things, and we should demand better from our leaders, but my sense is that people are unwittingly falling for right-wing propaganda when they fall prey to the belief that Hillary Clinton is a uniquely remorseless Machiavellian monster who is simultaneously a money-grubbing Goldwater Republican and an uppity feminist bitch. The GOP has promoted some of these memes since Bill was in office, and when people hear something often enough, they come to believe it.

This article pretty much hits the nail on the head when it comes to the Democrats, which is that people have to stay involved in the political process to motivate/persuade/pressure Clinton to stay on track:

https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton?utm_source=New+Republic&utm_campaign=ae6ba26278-Daily_Newsletter_10_14_1610_14_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c4ad0aba7e-ae6ba26278-60030489

 

[#00Buck]

5 minutes ago, Troj said:

Hillary Clinton has apologized for her "super-predators" comment, and has recently expressed support for gay marriage and gay rights.

That's called lying and pandering. 

She will say anything to get elected. 

Do you honesty believe that she isn't racist and homophobic? 

Here's what people have to say about her husband who forced an intern to blow him in the oval office. 

Then had a huge number of women come out in Bill Cosby like numbers to accuse him of rape.

Didn't he apologize for his whole blowjob scandal? I guess that means he's not a misogynist piece of crap anymore. 

I'll remember that saying "I'm sorry" automatically removes all guilt from anything you've done in the past. 

[Saxon]

Buck still doesn't understand that proving somebody else is a racist wouldn't prove that Donald isn't.

...and conveniently ignored criticisms of anti free speech policies.

[Troj]

Well, there's lots of ways to say, "I'm sorry."

When she got called out on both the emails and the super-predators comment, she took responsibility, and expressed regret.

Whether that apology was sincere or not, who knows? How much of the apology was what she wanted to say vs. what she felt people wanted to hear, I don't know. Politicians are in the business of telling people what they want to hear.

What matters is what she ultimately does as a person and a politician, and her current rhetoric suggests that she's capable of toeing the line, at least.

Bill Clinton is your typical Southern good-old-boy womanizer, yes, and Hillary has consistently opted to stand by him, even in cases where he may have crossed the line into coercion or assault. Unethical? Absolutely. Predictable and understandable? Certainly. People who make ethical exceptions or excuses for their loved ones are the rule, not the exception.

Politically, she has a long record of advocating for women and children, so if she's a misogynist, she's doing a good job of concealing it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/18/1487116/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Long-Committed-Record-Advocating-For-Women-and-Children

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/how-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health

Also, her voting record is more liberal than many people seem to think:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton

She's also more honest than many people assume--with the caveat, of course, that Politifact only measures verbal statements, and doesn't (to my knowledge) weigh Truths and Lies, so someone can tell the truth about a minor issue, and a whopper about a serious one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/

 

[Fossa]

52 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I think everyone already knows that a lot of Democrats who opposed same sex marriage 12 years ago, are in favour of it now, for example Barack Obama.
Troj's point is that Donald and much of his party still oppose same sex marriage, which is disappointing.

An official policy 'plank' of the Republican Party platform opposes gay marriage, and wants to go so far as to seek a constitutional amendment banning it. And I didn't see Trump denounce this at the convention, or at any other point. 

[Zeke]

33 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Buck still doesn't understand that proving somebody else is a racist wouldn't prove that Donald isn't.

...and conveniently ignored criticisms of anti free speech policies.

In this day and age, most people wouldn't recognize a dogwhistle comment even if someone blew an actual dogwhistle in their ear.

But you know, Daddy Trump is a precious cinnamon roll that is the one shining star left in the void.

Because Hillary IS a career politician, people are going to pick on her more for her record than someone who has little to none other than retweeting stuff from Don Black and click bait articles about Hillary selling the US to the Arabs. Since Donald is NOT a career political and a fresh face in the arena, people will give him more of a free pass because he hasn't been "tainted" by lobbyists. 

 

 

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

In this day and age, most people wouldn't recognize a dogwhistle comment even if someone blew an actual dogwhistle in their ear.

But you know, Daddy Trump is a precious cinnamon roll that is the one shining star left in the void.

Because Hillary IS a career politician, people are going to pick on her more for her record than someone who has little to none other than retweeting stuff from Don Black and click bait articles about Hillary selling the US to the Arabs. 

 

...just thinking about this, you shouldn't be able to hear a dog whistle anyway?
I've not used one, but I thought they were of such high frequency that human ears were insensitive to them.

 

Anyway, I agree with you about people's disdain for career politics. I would be able to empathise if people thought 'career politicians don't live like us, they've never had to hold down a real job, so how can they understand our problems?...but the same reasoning applies to corporate billionaires.

[Zeke]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

...just thinking about this, you shouldn't be able to hear a dog whistle anyway?
I've not used one, but I thought they were of such high frequency that human ears were insensitive to them.

 

Anyway, I agree with you about people's disdain for career politics. I would be able to empathise if people thought 'career politicians don't live like us, they've never had to hold down a real job, so how can they understand our problems?...but the same reasoning applies to corporate billionaires.

Some people can hear dog whistles. It's not rare, but not uncommon either. If you get a low frequency dog (Cheapo) whistle around 22-25kHz, some can detect it. It sounds kind of like high pitched ringing. If you want to make sure you can't hear it, get a 50-60kHz. Even then, some teenagers can detect it. Another topic, probs. 

Anyways, anyone actually read the emails wikileaks released? They are boring as fuck.

[Endless/Nameless]

On October 17, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Rassah said:

Well, what everyone always forgets come election season is that the Senate and House make all the rules, not the president who actually don't have a lot of power, so none of what they claim or promise is likely to actually happen.

ikr