Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton)

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

DWags wrote:This country is fucked. Doesn't matter who wins. She wins, we get an obstructionist congress and nothing gets done. People will hate each other.

He wins, we get a fractured Republican Party and democrats who didn't go vote will be in such a pissed off mood there will be no cooperation. Dollar to a donut he takes revenge on political opponents too.

The press has slowly deteriorated into cheer leaders. Intelligent people on both sides are coming up with ways to convince themselves their information is right. It's actually quite scary and I'm if the firm belief that for some reason many voters 20-30% are cheering for chaos.

Yesterday a friend of my wife told us "I heard they used over a million dollars of Clinton foundation money to try to keep the 15 year old girl quiet that Weiner was sexting"

She has an undergrad from msu and a masters from Michigan. Wife and I just nodded. I went back out and chopped some wood.

This shit is fucked up.

I've been saying it for years - Americans are basically stupid.

NigelUno wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I've been saying it for years - Americans are basically stupid.

You're a great American.

Also revealed: That conservatives who once took umbrage at being called racist or anti-Semitic are now happy to flirt with white nationalism. That a party of self-described strict constructionists sees nothing amiss in Mr. Trump’s call to rewrite the 14th Amendment. That the ability of Mr. Trump and his supporters to hurl insults at their critics is only exceeded by their exquisite sensitivity when they are insulted back. That a reset with Russia is a fiasco when executed by Hillary Clinton but evidence of fresh foreign-policy thinking when proposed by Mr. Trump.

As for conservative thought leaders, the book that comes to mind is Julien Benda’s 1927 classic, La Trahison des clercs, “The Treason of the Intellectuals.” Benda railed against a new class of European thinkers who specialized in “the intellectual organization of political hatreds,” the “desire to abase the values of knowledge before the values of action,” and above all “the cult of success,” based on “the teaching that says that when a will is successful that fact alone gives it a moral value, whereas the will which fails is for that reason alone deserving of contempt.”

Benda used to be a favorite among conservative thinkers who saw him as a prophetic voice against multiculturalism, postmodernism and other left-wing academic fads rooted in 19th century German Romanticism. Where are those thinkers now that Mr. Trump is using his own fetish for action and cult of success to dismiss his political opponents as losers, lowlifes and criminals? Where are they now that Mr. Trump’s Breitbart minions are organizing political hatreds against “globalists” and other new enemies of the people?

They are busy devising ever-more elaborate excuses for the Republican nominee. A flawed messenger for a worthy message. An agent of mass disruption in an era of secular stagnation. A hollow man who may yet take our good advice and stumble his way to greatness. A jerk who nonetheless compares favorably to Mrs. Clinton.

An Open Letter to the American People

Today, we are faced with a moral test. As historians, we recognize both the ominous precedents for Donald J. Trump’s candidacy and the exceptional challenge it poses to civil society. Historians of different specialties, eras and regions understand the enduring appeal of demagogues, the promise and peril of populism, and the political uses of bigotry and scapegoating. Historians understand the impact these phenomena have upon society’s most vulnerable and upon a nation’s conscience. The lessons of history compel us to speak out against a movement rooted in fear and authoritarianism. The lessons of history compel us to speak out against Trump.

Historians Against Trump does not align itself with any political party or candidate. Many among us do not identify as activists and have never before taken part in such a campaign. We are history professors, school teachers, public historians and museum professionals, independent scholars and graduate students. We are united by the belief that the candidacy of Donald J. Trump poses a threat to American democracy.

As historians, we consider diverse viewpoints while acknowledging our own limitations and subjectivity. Our profession reminds us to look for the humanity in everyone as we examine the ideas, interests and movements that shape world events. We interrogate and take responsibility for our sources and ground our arguments in context and evidence. Donald Trump’s record of speeches, policies and social media is an archive of know-nothingism and blinding self-regard. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is a campaign of violence: violence against individuals and groups; against memory and accountability; against historical analysis and fact.

The Trump candidacy is an attack on our profession, our values, and the communities we serve. No less than his sham “Trump University,” Donald Trump’s contempt for constructive, evidence-based argumentation mocks the ideals of the academy, whether in the sciences or the liberal arts. Academia is far from the only profession endangered by Trumpism. Donald Trump bullies and suppresses the press, and seeks to weaken First Amendment protections as President. Trump singles out journalists for attack and mocks physical disabilities. Both the judiciary and individual judges face public threats from Trump. Non-white, non-male professionals and civil servants are irredeemably compromised in Donald Trump’s eyes. Judges are disqualified from service because of their ethnicity; women Presidential candidates succeed only because of their gender; the President of the United States is under suspicion as illegitimate and alien because of his skin color and heritage.

Donald Trump’s candidacy is the latest chapter in a troubled narrative many decades in the making. In another era, civil society institutions such as the academy, the free press and the judiciary were counted on to safeguard constitutional democracy. That this is no longer the case cannot be blamed solely on Trump. Donald Trump’s candidacy has profited from the fears of people living precariously and a political culture of spectacle and cynicism, both of which long predate his emergence as a candidate. The impulses and ideologies that animate the Trump campaign will not disappear once he is defeated in November. It is all of our responsibility to heal the rifts exploited by the Trump campaign, building an inclusive civil society in its place. Along with Historians Against Trump, groups like Writers On Trump and Citizen Therapists are organizing in defense of the ideals in which their professions are grounded.

We have a professional obligation as historians to share an understanding of the past upon which a better future may be built. This means equipping the public with historical skills and narratives that are “factual, accurate, comprehensible, meaningful, useful, and resistant to cynical manipulators who sell snake oil as historical truth.” When Donald Trump accepts the Republican nomination on July 21st, a Grand Old Party born out of the struggle for abolition and justice will have succumbed to snake oil. We are here to say, “No more.” Join us in standing up to Trump—for our history, for our future, and for each other.

Turtleneck wrote:

An Open Letter to the American People

Today, we are faced with a moral test. As historians, we recognize both the ominous precedents for Donald J. Trump’s candidacy and the exceptional challenge it poses to civil society. Historians of different specialties, eras and regions understand the enduring appeal of demagogues, the promise and peril of populism, and the political uses of bigotry and scapegoating. Historians understand the impact these phenomena have upon society’s most vulnerable and upon a nation’s conscience. The lessons of history compel us to speak out against a movement rooted in fear and authoritarianism. The lessons of history compel us to speak out against Trump.

Historians Against Trump does not align itself with any political party or candidate. Many among us do not identify as activists and have never before taken part in such a campaign. We are history professors, school teachers, public historians and museum professionals, independent scholars and graduate students. We are united by the belief that the candidacy of Donald J. Trump poses a threat to American democracy.

As historians, we consider diverse viewpoints while acknowledging our own limitations and subjectivity. Our profession reminds us to look for the humanity in everyone as we examine the ideas, interests and movements that shape world events. We interrogate and take responsibility for our sources and ground our arguments in context and evidence. Donald Trump’s record of speeches, policies and social media is an archive of know-nothingism and blinding self-regard. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is a campaign of violence: violence against individuals and groups; against memory and accountability; against historical analysis and fact.

The Trump candidacy is an attack on our profession, our values, and the communities we serve. No less than his sham “Trump University,” Donald Trump’s contempt for constructive, evidence-based argumentation mocks the ideals of the academy, whether in the sciences or the liberal arts. Academia is far from the only profession endangered by Trumpism. Donald Trump bullies and suppresses the press, and seeks to weaken First Amendment protections as President. Trump singles out journalists for attack and mocks physical disabilities. Both the judiciary and individual judges face public threats from Trump. Non-white, non-male professionals and civil servants are irredeemably compromised in Donald Trump’s eyes. Judges are disqualified from service because of their ethnicity; women Presidential candidates succeed only because of their gender; the President of the United States is under suspicion as illegitimate and alien because of his skin color and heritage.

Donald Trump’s candidacy is the latest chapter in a troubled narrative many decades in the making. In another era, civil society institutions such as the academy, the free press and the judiciary were counted on to safeguard constitutional democracy. That this is no longer the case cannot be blamed solely on Trump. Donald Trump’s candidacy has profited from the fears of people living precariously and a political culture of spectacle and cynicism, both of which long predate his emergence as a candidate. The impulses and ideologies that animate the Trump campaign will not disappear once he is defeated in November. It is all of our responsibility to heal the rifts exploited by the Trump campaign, building an inclusive civil society in its place. Along with Historians Against Trump, groups like Writers On Trump and Citizen Therapists are organizing in defense of the ideals in which their professions are grounded.

We have a professional obligation as historians to share an understanding of the past upon which a better future may be built. This means equipping the public with historical skills and narratives that are “factual, accurate, comprehensible, meaningful, useful, and resistant to cynical manipulators who sell snake oil as historical truth.” When Donald Trump accepts the Republican nomination on July 21st, a Grand Old Party born out of the struggle for abolition and justice will have succumbed to snake oil. We are here to say, “No more.” Join us in standing up to Trump—for our history, for our future, and for each other.

It was too long to post, but nearly 1000 historians signed on to the above letter.

http://www.historiansagainsttrump.org/

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Goose it's not really about who signed the letter. It's about the content and the fact that trump has shown exactly what they explain. You deflect in defense of trump. Again. Goose is not republican.

Liberal comedian Bill Maher on Friday night said it was wrong for Democrats to have portrayed former Republicans as villains, explaining that they “cried wolf” when it wasn’t necessary.
The “Real Time” host contended Donald Trump, the current Republican presidential nominee, was truly dangerous for America, on the other hand. He lamented that liberals had previously described other Republicans in similar terms, a move he said weakened their ability to get individuals to heed their warnings this time around.
“I know liberals made a big mistake because we attacked your boy [President George W. Bush] like he was the end of the world,” Maher told panelist David Frum, a former speechwriter for Bush. “He wasn’t.”
Maher continued: “And Mitt Romney, we attacked that way. I gave Obama a million dollars, I was so afraid of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney wouldn’t have changed my life that much, or yours. Or John McCain.”
“They were honorable men who we disagreed with. And we should have kept it that way. So we cried wolf. And that was wrong,” Maher said.

Turtleneck wrote:Loose is the Vlad of tBin. Vlad knows more about BB and FB than Izzo and Dantonio. Loose knows more about history than a person with a Ph.D. in history, and more about politics than a person with a Ph.D. in political science. He really understands the academy even though he does not work inside the academy. How does he know so much? How has he reached the conclusion that he is all knowing? Well he gets up and reats Hot Air and Breitbart every morning!!!! Nevermind that when it was suggested he read some real research rather than spew marginal data from partisan sources, his response was "I don't have time for that." Nevermind that he fails to address the content and instead - rather ironically - tries to make is about bias.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Loose is the Vlad of tBin. Vlad knows more about BB and FB than Izzo and Dantonio. Loose knows more about history than a person with a Ph.D. in history, and more about politics than a person with a Ph.D. in political science. He really understands the academy even though he does not work inside the academy. How does he know so much? How has he reached the conclusion that he is all knowing? Well he gets up and reats Hot Air and Breitbart every morning!!!! Nevermind that when it was suggested he read some real research rather than spew marginal data from partisan sources, his response was "I don't have time for that." Nevermind that he fails to address the content and instead - rather ironically - tries to make is about bias.

Read the above and point out where Bill MAher is disagreeing with me.   He's a fucking liberal and he knows this shit happens EVERY FUCKING ELECTION.   He names them - Bush - McCain - Romney - only this time he really does believe it.....or we're to believe him.

Oh and tell me it doesn't happen ok? You know so much.....what a dolt.

In reality, Loose is helping me make my point. Comparing McCain or Romney to Hitler? Absolutely absurd. I used to cringe every time Democrats called Bush a fascist.

In the U.S., most people do not understand fascism. The term is often used, but rarely used correctly. The more the term gets used incorrectly the more it gets watered down. Between the term being watered down and the U.S. never having to deal with a fascist movement, most Americans do not know the real thing when they see it. So, while McCain, Romney, and Bush are all within the (ideological) status quo, Trump is not. However, saying Trump is well outside the status quo leads some Republicans to take the position that "Democrats say that about every Republican" and immediately dismiss the claim without any reflection. Normally the absence of reflection would be fine - because the claim is insincere or inaccurate -  but now you have instance where elements of fascism are at play and people are burying their heads in the sand.

This is not to say Trump is Hitler. This is not to say Trump is going to murder millions of people. Give me a break. This is to say Trump's reactionary populism has fascist tendencies. He is a hyper-nationalist with anti-democratic tendencies and an affinity for violence (for the sake of violence). It's not hard to see where his brand of politics occasionally blurs the line with fascism. Saying his politics has fascist streaks is not saying he is a fascist, and saying his brand of politics cannot co-exist within our constitutional democracy is not a stretch of the imagination. None of this is complex.

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Goose it's not really about who signed the letter. It's about the content and the fact that trump has shown exactly what they explain. You deflect in defense of trump. Again. Goose is not republican.

OTPT honey? 4 years ago people were saying the same shit about Romney. 8 years ago it was McCain. 12 years ago it was Bush. You can go find the examples or I can dig them up for you. This is nothing new. EVERY fucking person the R's nominate is Hitler until they LOSE. Then......they're ok guys. Just as McCain was better than Romney and now Romney is better than Trump. It's so fucking predictable.

Want to make a $100 bet if I'm still alive? I'll bet you $100 that within a month of the '20 nominee for the Republican Party being in place I'll be able to link you to a Major Dem Officeholder or a Major Network Pundit comparing them unfavorably to Trump. Want to bet?

Fuck even Maher is supposedly sorry for this shit now:

Liberal comedian Bill Maher on Friday night said it was wrong for Democrats to have portrayed former Republicans as villains, explaining that they “cried wolf” when it wasn’t necessary.
The “Real Time” host contended Donald Trump, the current Republican presidential nominee, was truly dangerous for America, on the other hand. He lamented that liberals had previously described other Republicans in similar terms, a move he said weakened their ability to get individuals to heed their warnings this time around.
“I know liberals made a big mistake because we attacked your boy [President George W. Bush] like he was the end of the world,” Maher told panelist David Frum, a former speechwriter for Bush. “He wasn’t.”
Maher continued: “And Mitt Romney, we attacked that way. I gave Obama a million dollars, I was so afraid of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney wouldn’t have changed my life that much, or yours. Or John McCain.”
“They were honorable men who we disagreed with. And we should have kept it that way. So we cried wolf. And that was wrong,” Maher said.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Goose is off on a tangent about dem vs repubs while ignoring any of the shit trump has done or said. This is rich. You can't make it
Up. Goose is not republican.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Wait so did Romney and bush have similar baggage that trump brings? Grabbing women by the pussy? Banning an entire religion from entering the country? Did they mock handicapped people? Or are you just deflecting...again?

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Goose is off on a tangent about dem vs repubs while ignoring any of the shit trump has done or said. This is rich. You can't make it
Up. Goose is not republican.

Here's the point you miss. Either willfully or by only reading what you want to see. TN and Bob in the past have wanted you to read me saying one thing as me saying quite something else. They want you to believe that me disagreeing with the tactics used by Democrats automatically makes me a Trump ass kisser. In other words 2+2=5.

My point is that none of this shit like that letter is new or extraordinary because they pull that shit out of the hat in EVERY election no matter the nominee. So it's really no proof at all of how "bad" this nominee is. If you don't believe that then just quit dancing around it and tell me I'm a damned liar?

Either way, I know you're a betting man and I proposed a wager above. Ready to go on it?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Wait so did Romney and bush have similar baggage that trump brings? Grabbing women by the pussy? Banning an entire religion from entering the country? Did they mock handicapped people? Or are you just deflecting...again?

Turtleneck wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Wait so did Romney and bush have similar baggage that trump brings? Grabbing women by the pussy? Banning an entire religion from entering the country? Did they mock handicapped people? Or are you just deflecting...again?

No. Anybody that labeled those two fascist is an idiot. Just like anybody calling Obama a fascist is an idiot (I think Alex Jones at Infowars - real reputable stuff - is good for a few Obama is a fascist digs).

Trump has fascist tendencies. It is not the same things as being a fascist. He is more populist than fascist, but his brand of populism has those tendencies. It's a brand of populism that has been rising across Europe for the last 10-20 years.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Here's the point you miss. Either willfully or by only reading what you want to see. TN and Bob in the past have wanted you to read me saying one thing as me saying quite something else. They want you to believe that me disagreeing with the tactics used by Democrats automatically makes me a Trump ass kisser. In other words 2+2=5.

My point is that none of this shit like that letter is new or extraordinary because they pull that shit out of the hat in EVERY election no matter the nominee. So it's really no proof at all of how "bad" this nominee is. If you don't believe that then just quit dancing around it and tell me I'm a damned liar?

Either way, I know you're a betting man and I proposed a wager above. Ready to go on it?

Can you please link to the open letter to America written by Historians Against McCain and Historians Against Romney?

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

No. Anybody that labeled those two fascist is an idiot. Just like anybody calling Obama a fascist is an idiot (I think Alex Jones at Infowars - real reputable stuff - is good for a few Obama is a fascist digs).

Trump has fascist tendencies. It is not the same things as being a fascist. He is more populist than fascist, but his brand of populism has those tendencies. It's a brand of populism that has been rising across Europe for the last 10-20 years.

You're a damned good Dem. Now that they've lost they're good guys unlike that prick Trump.

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Wait so did Romney and bush have similar baggage that trump brings? Grabbing women by the pussy? Banning an entire religion from entering the country? Did they mock handicapped people? Or are you just deflecting...again?

The mocking handicapped people has been debunked pretty much.   But then again being a low info voter you probably don't know that since you didn't read it.   It's like the Hillary ad where she makes it appear he says "they can go fuck themselves" he doesn't, he implied it but left it blank.  

They had baggage and it got run into the ground.   Bush's DUI - Romney at Prep school - Romney with the dog on the roof - not as nasty but still shit that got hammered on over and over again.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

The mocking handicapped people has been debunked pretty much.   But then again being a low info voter you probably don't know that since you didn't read it.   It's like the Hillary ad where she makes it appear he says "they can go fuck themselves" he doesn't, he implied it but left it blank.  

They had baggage and it got run into the ground.   Bush's DUI - Romney at Prep school - Romney with the dog on the roof - not as nasty but still shit that got hammered on over and over again.

Are you serious with this shit?

If Trump wasn't mocking that guy, then what the fuck was he doing?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Goose is trolling. Has to be. He caught all of us.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

The mocking handicapped people has been debunked pretty much.   But then again being a low info voter you probably don't know that since you didn't read it.   It's like the Hillary ad where she makes it appear he says "they can go fuck themselves" he doesn't, he implied it but left it blank.  

They had baggage and it got run into the ground.   Bush's DUI - Romney at Prep school - Romney with the dog on the roof - not as nasty but still shit that got hammered on over and over again.

Are you serious with this shit?

If Trump wasn't mocking that guy, then what the fuck was he doing?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Goose is trolling. Has to be. He caught all of us.

Turtleneck wrote:I have a feeling we (or maybe just I) pushed him too hard on the Trump thing, and now he is digging his heals in. That 'not mocking the disabled' comment caught me off guard. It was pretty obvious that was what Trump was doing.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Are you serious with this shit?

If Trump wasn't mocking that guy, then what the fuck was he doing?

Go look for yourself.   Anything I bring here is dismissed.   Strange for the supposed open minds.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Are you serious with this shit?

If Trump wasn't mocking that guy, then what the fuck was he doing?

Go look for yourself. Anything I bring here is dismissed. Strange for the supposed open minds.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:I have a feeling we (or maybe just I) pushed him too hard on the Trump thing, and now he is digging his heals in. That 'not mocking the disabled' comment caught me off guard. It was pretty obvious that was what Trump was doing.

It doesn't surprise me at all that none of you had seen the debunking of it.   It's not 100% persuasive but it does make a solid case that he wasn't mocking the handicapped guy.   And again, he's a stupid fuck but at least some of what he gets accused of is people jumping to conclusions based on confirmation bias.

Like in here with the 2+2=5 that if you criticize the Dems you must support Trump.   None of you can imagine anything but a binary choice.


And here's an article on the smears over the years....

The Left Has Cried Wolf On Republicans So Long Trump Is Immune

And that's from September, long before Maher.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:I have a feeling we (or maybe just I) pushed him too hard on the Trump thing, and now he is digging his heals in. That 'not mocking the disabled' comment caught me off guard. It was pretty obvious that was what Trump was doing.

It doesn't surprise me at all that none of you had seen the debunking of it.   It's not 100% persuasive but it does make a solid case that he wasn't mocking the handicapped guy.   And again, he's a stupid fuck but at least some of what he gets accused of is people jumping to conclusions based on confirmation bias.

Like in here with the 2+2=5 that if you criticize the Dems you must support Trump.   None of you can imagine anything but a binary choice.


And here's an article on the smears over the years....

The Left Has Cried Wolf On Republicans So Long Trump Is Immune

And that's from September, long before Maher.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

It doesn't surprise me at all that none of you had seen the debunking of it.   It's not 100% persuasive but it does make a solid case that he wasn't mocking the handicapped guy.   And again, he's a stupid fuck but at least some of what he gets accused of is people jumping to conclusions based on confirmation bias.

Like in here with the 2+2=5 that if you criticize the Dems you must support Trump.   None of you can imagine anything but a binary choice.


And here's an article on the smears over the years....

The Left Has Cried Wolf On Republicans So Long Trump Is Immune

And that's from September, long before Maher.

Wait. You actually believe he wasn't mocking the handicapped guy?

You're approaching Vlad and blanch levels of stupidity. Trust me...that's not a complement.

The media’s clear implication was that Trump was mocking the way Kovaleski moved his arms. People watching the clip of Trump’s impersonation only knew that Kovaleski was disabled. Thus, they naturally assumed Kovaleski’s disability must be similar to cerebral palsy where he has limited control of his movements and is prone to have muscle spasms or move his arms in jerky motions as Trump was doing at the rally. This is precisely the image the media wanted in people’s minds. They wanted this to be the story: that Donald Trump knowingly and intentionally mocked the flailing arm motions of someone who can’t control his muscles. They knew this would naturally trigger a visceral reaction of disgust from viewers and outrage amongst the disabled and all decent Americans, many of whom, to this day, think this is exactly what happened. Is it?

What the media did not choose to show you was video of Serge Kovaleski. Notice how the media only showed and still shows photos of him. This was done for a reason. As it turns out, Kovaleski’s disability is a congenital condition called arthrogryposis. Arthrogryposis causes restricted movement in the joints but does not cause spasms or uncontrolled moving of the limbs like cerebral palsy does.To show the depths of the deceit, one CNN reporter explained, while displaying a still photo of him, that Kovaleski, “suffers from a chronic condition that impairs movement of his arms.” Again, the implication is that Kovaleski can’t control his arms from moving. To the contrary, Kovaleski appears perfectly calm when giving interviews. Thus, if Trump truly wanted to mock Kovaleski’s disability, he would have had to stand perfectly still with a flexed right hand and not flail his arms.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Go look for yourself.   Anything I bring here is dismissed.   Strange for the supposed open minds.

You didn't answer my question. Do I need to ask again?

Are you suggesting he wasn't mocking that guy?  Did Trump just have a seizure of some sort at that exact moment?

I'll ask again anyway...what the fuck was Trump doing?