Hillary faints @ ground zero?

[Starbuck1975]

How, exactly?

Do you not recall how the Clinton campaign handled the Farakhan endorsement or when that picture started to circulate with Obama in Somali attire? The only difference is that Clinton is far more subtle.

 

[ivwshane]

The Klan? Seriously? The Klan is a pimple on the ass of history, and has zero political influence in modern society. I don't hear Trump advocating for lynching or white supremacy. I do hear Trump playing to fear driven prejudices, but I recall Clinton doing much of the same when Obama pulled ahead of her. I dismiss the Klan much as I dismiss anarchists, communists or black panther militants as representative of liberals,

If you think the klan is only about lynching and advocating public displays of white supremacy, then you've got a lot of catching up to do. The klan has changed and so has their tactics.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If you think the klan is only about lynching and advocating public displays of white supremacy, then you've got a lot of catching up to do. The klan has changed and so has their tactics.

I looked it up because you made me curious. 3000 to 5000 active and geographically isolated members, with the most dangerous under watch by the FBI. Their tactics may be changing but I dont see them having much reach.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you not recall how the Clinton campaign handled the Farakhan endorsement or when that picture started to circulate with Obama in Somali attire? The only difference is that Clinton is far more subtle.

You employ Brandolini's Law rather well. Just keep generating bullshit knowing it takes a lot more effort to refute it than to sling it.

The Farrakhan thing was a minor blip. In no way did she associate Obama with Farrakhan-

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/27/clinton-hits-obama-over-farrakhan-support/

The whole Obama in a turban thing was masterful bullshit from Drudge in claiming it came from the Clinton campaign-

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton

They tear down both Clinton and Obama with the same stroke, set sparks flying between them. Right wing propaganda genius.

 

[Jhhnn]

I looked it up because you made me curious. 3000 to 5000 active and geographically isolated members, with the most dangerous under watch by the FBI. Their tactics may be changing but I dont see them having much reach.

A lot of the Klan just doesn't call themselves the Klan anymore-

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Use the sort function on the map to name your favorite hate group. Lots of other useful information there as well for anybody not pooh-poohing the issue.

 

[agent00f]

The Klan? Seriously? The Klan is a pimple on the ass of history, and has zero political influence in modern society. I don't hear Trump advocating for lynching or white supremacy. I do hear Trump playing to fear driven prejudices, but I recall Clinton doing much of the same when Obama pulled ahead of her. I dismiss the Klan much as I dismiss anarchists, communists or black panther militants as representative of liberals,

Klan here simply means the american version of white nationalist, which has quite the history & presence here and abroad; evident enough given Trump was the clear white nationalist choice of candidate in the GOP field.

As an illustrative example with simple math, civil rights wasn't able to pass via the ballot even in states with a substantial black population, and I'm pretty sure the blacks weren't voting for more segregation. The same white majority & their descendants/successors still live among us, though I'm sure you're aware nowadays even the ones who call blacks chimps deny their racism.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Klan here simply means the american version of white nationalist, which has quite the history & presence here and abroad; evident enough given Trump was the clear white nationalist choice of candidate in the GOP field.

As an illustrative example with simple math, civil rights wasn't able to pass via the ballot even in states with a substantial black population, and I'm pretty sure the blacks weren't voting for more segregation. The same white majority & their descendants/successors still live among us, though I'm sure you're aware nowadays even the ones who call blacks chimps deny their racism.

I've lived in blue states. I've lived in red states. I've never heard a black person referred to as a chimp. The only time I ever hear the "n" word is when young black people use it in conversation amongst themselves. On a few occasions, late at night on subways and buses, I've been called a beloved patriot or cracker. Yes there are elements of the white nationalists you speak of, but I've honestly never encountered them. I did encounter them interestingly enough at train stations in Frankfurt when I was living in Germany.

Yes white nationilists will vote for Trump. I could see how his platform of xenophobia would appeal to them. I think you are outsizing their influence.

 

[agent00f]

I've lived in blue states. I've lived in red states. I've never heard a black person referred to as a chimp. The only time I ever hear the "n" word is when young black people use it in conversation amongst themselves. On a few occasions, late at night on subways and buses, I've been called a beloved patriot or cracker. Yes there are elements of the white nationalists you speak of, but I've honestly never encountered them. I did encounter them interestingly enough at train stations in Frankfurt when I was living in Germany.

Yes white nationilists will vote for Trump. I could see how his platform of xenophobia would appeal to them. I think you are outsizing their influence.

I would imagine this person who goes on to vehemently deny any racism doesn't use these term IRL or outside the cover of anonymity: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...g-little-fockers.2131546/page-5#post-31002450. Notice the reaction of others in the thread isn't exactly shock, even after the "should lynch every damn one of them" comment.

Similarly, stormfront & /pol/ & various racist subs on reddit & the list goes on are quite popular. Racial resentment is by far the most reliable indicator of party affiliation, specifically in the case of trump: https://thewpsa.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/racial-resentment-and-the-rise-of-donald-trump/

Seems rather telling that despite this reality you insist that this of racism is dead in the US.

 

[MongGrel]

The only thing this thread seems to lack these days is a firey cross.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I would imagine this person who goes on to vehemently deny any racism doesn't use these term IRL or outside the cover of anonymity: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...g-little-fockers.2131546/page-5#post-31002450. Notice the reaction of others in the thread isn't exactly shock, even after the "should lynch every damn one of them" comment.

Similarly, stormfront & /pol/ & various racist subs on reddit & the list goes on are quite popular. Racial resentment is by far the most reliable indicator of party affiliation, specifically in the case of trump: https://thewpsa.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/racial-resentment-and-the-rise-of-donald-trump/

Seems rather telling that despite this reality you insist that this of racism is dead in the US.

I am not denying that racism exists. I question if it is as systemic as it once was, and also believe that as our society continues to become more diverse, it now comes in many shapes and sizes and exhibited by different cultures in other ways.

 

[realibrad]

You employ Brandolini's Law rather well. Just keep generating bullshit knowing it takes a lot more effort to refute it than to sling it.

The Farrakhan thing was a minor blip. In no way did she associate Obama with Farrakhan-

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/27/clinton-hits-obama-over-farrakhan-support/

The whole Obama in a turban thing was masterful bullshit from Drudge in claiming it came from the Clinton campaign-

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton

They tear down both Clinton and Obama with the same stroke, set sparks flying between them. Right wing propaganda genius.

Here you go.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html

“His roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values ... Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century ... Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t.“

Look at the article. It should give you some examples. Let me know if you need more.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here you go.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html

“His roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values ... Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century ... Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t.“

Look at the article. It should give you some examples. Let me know if you need more.

Here you go.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html

“His roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values ... Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century ... Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t.“

Look at the article. It should give you some examples. Let me know if you need more.

So we have a rehash of the 2008 campaign structured as a hit piece, loaded with interpretation, speculation & innuendo.

So Trump, right?

 

[realibrad]

So we have a rehash of the 2008 campaign structured as a hit piece, loaded with interpretation, speculation & innuendo.

So Trump, right?

Um...you wanted an example of when Hillary played to prejudices and I gave that to you. Did I miss something? The Hillary campaign is the group that spread the "Obama in Muslim garb" BS.

I thought you were asking for examples of when Clinton did the things claimed. Did you forget your post of?

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/hillary-faints-ground-zero.2485902/page-34#post-38475592

 

[agent00f]

I am not denying that racism exists. I question if it is as systemic as it once was, and also believe that as our society continues to become more diverse, it now comes in many shapes and sizes and exhibited by different cultures in other ways.

It looks less superficially so due to the overton window and general stigma against public displays of racism, but its prominence is rather obvious when the clear white nationalist candidate of choice is not too far from winning the presidency. As you mention, just take a look at the demographics of the people voting for and against him.

 

[realibrad]

It looks less superficially so due to the overton window and general stigma against public displays of racism, but its prominence is rather obvious when the clear white nationalist candidate of choice is not too far from winning the presidency. As you mention, just take a look at the demographics of the people voting for and against him.

You are making the assumption that those who vote for Trump are white nationalists. What if his votes hated women more than they hate anything else. Then it would be about sexism and not racism. In fact, you will find that many who pick a side disagree with many things, but pick that side because its closer to what they want.

 

[agent00f]

You are making the assumption that those who vote for Trump are white nationalists. What if his votes hated women more than they hate anything else. Then it would be about sexism and not racism. In fact, you will find that many who pick a side disagree with many things, but pick that side because its closer to what they want.

I'm only pointing out that trump is the clear white nationalist option of the GOP field, same as various white nationalist options in europe & such, which not coincidentally share the same views on just about everything incl. women/misogyny. Foreigners aren't the only underrepresented minority they generally disfavor.

 

[Roflmouth]

I'm only pointing out that trump is the clear white nationalist option of the GOP field,

And Hillary's the clear choice among Muslim terrorists, are you really going to vote the same way they are?

 

[realibrad]

I'm only pointing out that trump is the clear white nationalist option of the GOP field, same as various white nationalist options in europe & such, which not coincidentally share the same views on just about everything incl. women/misogyny. Foreigners aren't the only underrepresented minority they generally disfavor.

So he questions systemic racism, and you say its still there, just harder to see. I point out that it could be other reasons as to why people pick Trump, and now your post was about Trump being the white nationalist option. How did your post go from meaning that systemic racism is there there, to meaning Trump is the pick of racists? He said that he believes racism is still around, but he questions systemic racism. You could have very Trump voter be racist and there still not be a system of racism.

 

[Jhhnn]

Um...you wanted an example of when Hillary played to prejudices and I gave that to you. Did I miss something? The Hillary campaign is the group that spread the "Obama in Muslim garb" BS.

I thought you were asking for examples of when Clinton did the things claimed. Did you forget your post of?

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/hillary-faints-ground-zero.2485902/page-34#post-38475592

So you believe Drudge when they claim it came from Clinton's campaign? That's the source of what you claim.

Do you believe anybody who tells you what you want to hear?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Racial resentment is by far the most reliable indicator of party affiliation, specifically in the case of trump: https://thewpsa.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/racial-resentment-and-the-rise-of-donald-trump/

That link doesn't really support your claim, and their own claims are poorly supported by their assertions anyways. First, they show that Trump support, not party affiliation, can be reliably predicted by racial resentment. Support for Rubio is negatively correlated, and support for Kasich and Cruz is not correlated. Secondly, racists primarily supporting Trump does not make them the primary driver of Trump support. You could perform a similar study and find that gays strongly support Democratic candidates; it doesn't mean that Democrats exist because of homosexuality. That kind of polling does little to indicate the proportion of racists in support of a candidate relative to the total base of support. Thirdly, I don't see how they can say race is the primary driving force when they straight-up admit that they control for concerns over economic concerns and etc to isolate the impact of racism alone.

But all of that is what happens when you rely on Salon to perform an honest political study.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Klan? Seriously? The Klan is a pimple on the ass of history, and has zero political influence in modern society. I don't hear Trump advocating for lynching or white supremacy. I do hear Trump playing to fear driven prejudices, but I recall Clinton doing much of the same when Obama pulled ahead of her. I dismiss the Klan much as I dismiss anarchists, communists or black panther militants as representative of liberals,

You recall what, exactly? Lay it out & link it up. Otherwise, you're just back to the usual innuendo.

There's a whole sub culture of ideologically linked right wingers out there- the Klan, Skinheads, white nationalists, white supremacists, neo-nazis, alt-right & more who just luvs' 'em their Donald. Oh yes they do. It's not like any of them will be voting for Clinton, either.

 

[JSt0rm]

And Hillary's the clear choice among Muslim terrorists, are you really going to vote the same way they are?

Wait. I thought Hillary was a war hawk? Now she loves Muslims and is a secret terrorist. Will she fist bump the secret terrorist fist bump.

 

[agent00f]

And Hillary's the clear choice among Muslim terrorists, are you really going to vote the same way they are?

Even if someone were mouthing off randomly, they should at least sometimes accidentally appear to get the point, yet that never happens with you for some reason. The point here is enough white nationalist sorts had to vote for the white nationalist option to get to this point.

So he questions systemic racism, and you say its still there, just harder to see. I point out that it could be other reasons as to why people pick Trump, and now your post was about Trump being the white nationalist option. How did your post go from meaning that systemic racism is there there, to meaning Trump is the pick of racists? He said that he believes racism is still around, but he questions systemic racism. You could have very Trump voter be racist and there still not be a system of racism.

No, by pointing out society is generally more demographically diverse than it used to be, he's clearly implying there simply aren't as many racists for it be as systemic. But judging by the demographics of this election, it's pretty obvious all the older white males are voting for the white nationalist candidate.

 

[Jhhnn]

That link doesn't really support your claim, and their own claims are poorly supported by their assertions anyways. First, they show that Trump support, not party affiliation, can be reliably predicted by racial resentment. Support for Rubio is negatively correlated, and support for Kasich and Cruz is not correlated. Secondly, racists primarily supporting Trump does not make them the primary driver of Trump support. You could perform a similar study and find that gays strongly support Democratic candidates; it doesn't mean that Democrats exist because of homosexuality. That kind of polling does little to indicate the proportion of racists in support of a candidate relative to the total base of support. Thirdly, I don't see how they can say race is the primary driving force when they straight-up admit that they control for concerns over economic concerns and etc to isolate the impact of racism alone.

But all of that is what happens when you rely on Salon to perform an honest political study.

So, we're supposed to believe that people getting beaten down by trickledown economics will vote for it again because they're not driven by other irrational anxieties, like race, gender, sexuality, immigration & all the general forms of otherizing wedge issues?

 

[agent00f]

That link doesn't really support your claim, and their own claims are poorly supported by their assertions anyways. First, they show that Trump support, not party affiliation, can be reliably predicted by racial resentment. Support for Rubio is negatively correlated, and support for Kasich and Cruz is not correlated. Secondly, racists primarily supporting Trump does not make them the primary driver of Trump support. You could perform a similar study and find that gays strongly support Democratic candidates; it doesn't mean that Democrats exist because of homosexuality. That kind of polling does little to indicate the proportion of racists in support of a candidate relative to the total base of support. Thirdly, I don't see how they can say race is the primary driving force when they straight-up admit that they control for concerns over economic concerns and etc to isolate the impact of racism alone.

If you take a closer look at these sort of studies, racial resentment stands out as a better predictor than other metrics for party affiliation as mentioned. It also rather says something that trump handily beat the least racially resentful choices like rubio & such given the prominence of this metric.

But all of that is what happens when you rely on Salon to perform an honest political study.

The studies aren't conducted by salon, nor is the very recent one on the democraphics of trump support which reaches the same conclusions: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059. You can tell because it says study from so and so org, where the name isn't salon, like for example gallop is spelled rather differently.

Now in all fairness not all republicans like trump, but it's rather undeniable he won their nomination relatively easily, and pretty unimpeachable they agree on most other things as well.