The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 6:54 pm

Robert Gates:

26 years in the CIA and NSC and served as Secretary of Defense under President Bush and Obama.

Donald Trump:

"Believe me, I am so much better at what he's doing than he is."

Wha.....how....huh????

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:41 pm

Hillary Goddamn Clinton.

The mind boggles.

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:19 am

Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:That's not what astonished me. That's just "Drumpf > Clinton."

What's, again, incomprehensible is your "Drumpf >>>> Clinton."
Well, given that Drumpf may win the popular vote, you tell me why this is possible. If your answer is over half of the country is racist then wow.

So I'm driving to work today and I see a yard with somewhere around 20 Trump signs in a circle with the Confederate battle flag in the middle. I live in Northern Ohio. Do you think that guy is racist or is he just a deplorable?

Unfortunately where I live we have a lot of people that hang the Confederate Battle flag somewhere near their house and 100% of them have Trump signs in their yard as well. Does this mean that all Trump voters are racist, absolutely not but it does add into the basket of deplorables percentage.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:27 am

Scraper wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:That's not what astonished me. That's just "Drumpf > Clinton."

What's, again, incomprehensible is your "Drumpf >>>> Clinton."
Well, given that Drumpf may win the popular vote, you tell me why this is possible. If your answer is over half of the country is racist then wow.
So I'm driving to work today and I see a yard with somewhere around 20 Trump signs in a circle with the Confederate battle flag in the middle. I live in Northern Ohio. Do you think that guy is racist or is he just a deplorable?

Unfortunately where I live we have a lot of people that hang the Confederate Battle flag somewhere near their house and 100% of them have Trump signs in their yard as well. Does this mean that all Trump voters are racist, absolutely not but it does add into the basket of deplorables percentage.

How many times do we have to tell you - It's not racism. It's *heritage*. You know, Ohio being the heart of the Confederacy and all.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:41 am

It's an effort to get out the black vote.

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:43 am

geezer wrote:
Scraper wrote:
Smutly wrote:
Holman wrote:That's not what astonished me. That's just "Drumpf > Clinton."

What's, again, incomprehensible is your "Drumpf >>>> Clinton."
Well, given that Drumpf may win the popular vote, you tell me why this is possible. If your answer is over half of the country is racist then wow.
So I'm driving to work today and I see a yard with somewhere around 20 Drumpf signs in a circle with the Confederate battle flag in the middle. I live in Northern Ohio. Do you think that guy is racist or is he just a deplorable?

Unfortunately where I live we have a lot of people that hang the Confederate Battle flag somewhere near their house and 100% of them have Drumpf signs in their yard as well. Does this mean that all Drumpf voters are racist, absolutely not but it does add into the basket of deplorables percentage.
How many times do we have to tell you - It's not racism. It's *heritage*. You know, Ohio being the heart of the Confederacy and all.

Not just Ohio, Northern Ohio. As in closer to Canada than the Mason Dixon line.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:15 am

Jaymann wrote:It's an effort to get out the black vote.

out
out
all the way out

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:24 am

For those who found Hillary's comments, ummm, deplorable - When did calling out racism become worse than racism itself?

The reaction to Clinton’s comments is a reflection that in 21st-century America it is considered worse by many to call somebody a racist than to actually be one...... However if we do not view Mr. Trump, a man who has referred to Mexicans as rapists, promised widespread religious discriminations against Muslims, advocated violence against African American demonstrators and supported anti-Semitic themes that are older than our country, as a racist,...than the word has no meaning at all. In other words, if Donald Trump is not a racist, what would somebody have to do to be considered a racist?...

...It is also unfair and ahistorical to assert that Trump’s racist campaign is sui generis and without antecedent in modern GOP politics. Racist appeals have been part of Republican campaigns for decades. Additionally, over the last 40 years, Republicans have made few sincere attempts to reach out to African American voters and have crafted policies that have been very damaging for African Americans. However, in most cases, and certainly at the presidential level, Republican candidates have at least sought to be subtle about their racism, and feel vaguely embarrassed by it, rather than celebrate it and place it at the center of their campaign. Trump’s campaign has been different and threatens not just to unravel whatever is left of our delicate social fabric, but to do it recklessly and seemingly with great joy.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:41 am

Her mistake was to generalize. There was little to be gained by stating this truth, as anyone who feels any guilt at all will just double down when called on it, and those who don't feel any guilt don't give a crap.

Then there are people who aren't racist who support Drumpf who, mistakenly, believe Clinton is including them in that description, which just makes them even less interested in supporting her.

It was a lose, lose, lose situation. I have no idea what she was thinking. Sure, it's true, in that Drumpf has said many racist things, he has well known racists supporting him, and many comments from his less known supporters are also racist.

The rest of us including the media should be calling them out, not Clinton.

The average non-racist supporter of Drumpf is doing so because they see him as a successful business man who knows the economy. Even the most rudimentary review shows this to be untrue. THAT'S what she should be going after. The actual racists are a lost cause, and the non-racists either aren't aware of don't care about him being racist. They care about the economy. But Drumpf is likely to destroy that as well.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:54 am

GreenGoo wrote:Her mistake was to generalize. There was little to be gained by stating this truth, as anyone who feels any guilt at all will just double down when called on it, and those who don't feel any guilt don't give a crap.

If there wasn't anything to be gained by stating the truth, maybe it wasn't a mistake to generalize, especially since it got the media talking about it much more than it had been previously.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:04 pm

Party foul!

You don't get to be published and both use "ahistorical to assert that Trump’s racist campaign is sui generis and without antecedent" and screw up "than the word has no meaning at all." in same piece.

To the question, my first guess is it's been boiling over decades with affirmative action debates where legitimate discussions get confused with racism and then the bigots got a place to hide behind to later become emboldened in Trump fashion, projecting your flaws on that which you want held back.

That and I think it's taken the same projection lesson from the freedom of religion bigots and their move to the forefront of politics.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:00 pm

Defiant wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Her mistake was to generalize. There was little to be gained by stating this truth, as anyone who feels any guilt at all will just double down when called on it, and those who don't feel any guilt don't give a crap.
If there wasn't anything to be gained by stating the truth, maybe it wasn't a mistake to generalize, especially since it got the media talking about it much more than it had been previously.

There was nothing to be gained and a lot of potential voters to offend. Nothing to gain, but something to lose.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:09 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
There was nothing to be gained and a lot of potential voters to offend. Nothing to gain, but something to lose.

I'm not sure that those that were offended were in Clinton's camp to begin with (especially since she's made the general claim that his campaign has been racist and playing to white nationist and others repeatedly before, just a proportion wasn't.). And if there were, her walking her back shortly after might allow them to come back to her while focusing the attention of the media on the problem

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:14 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Defiant wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Her mistake was to generalize. There was little to be gained by stating this truth, as anyone who feels any guilt at all will just double down when called on it, and those who don't feel any guilt don't give a crap.
If there wasn't anything to be gained by stating the truth, maybe it wasn't a mistake to generalize, especially since it got the media talking about it much more than it had been previously.
There was nothing to be gained and a lot of potential voters to offend. Nothing to gain, but something to lose.

She scored some points with me for stepping out of her usual bland poll-tested caution, so there's that. But we won't see that side of her again because it didn't poll well after the fact.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:26 pm

She said half, and then dialed it back to less than half. How is that generalizing Drumpf supporters?

As I posted the other day, notice that they are all now claiming to be proud of the "deplorable" group. I've yet to hear a supporter respond "Yes, some probably are deplorable, but not me".

Why do you suppose that is?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:05 pm

tgb wrote:She said half, and then dialed it back to less than half. How is that generalizing Drumpf supporters?

As I posted the other day, notice that they are all now claiming to be proud of the "deplorable" group. I've yet to hear a supporter respond "Yes, some probably are deplorable, but not me".

Why do you suppose that is?

Wait...what? As long as you don't suggest everyone is deplorable, you're not generalizing? Drumpf said "some, I assume, are good people". Does that mean he's not generalizing about Mexican immigrants?

People are embracing the deplorable label for a variety of reasons. Some are deplorable and proud of it. These are the guys with the racist chants and comments. Some are embracing the deplorable label as a giant middle finger to Clinton. They may not be racist but are offended (understandably so) when it is suggested that they are racist for supporting drumpf. Some are embracing the deplorable label because they hate Clinton so much they are proud to wear a label that identifies them as anti-Clinton.

This is not a new phenomenon. It's like advocating for gun control by characterizing gun owners as whack job rednecks. Or only "some" as whackjob rednecks. Everyone is going to dig in and prepare for siege. It doesn't matter that you are only talking about some, because every gun owner is going to feel you're trying to lump them into that group.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:37 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
tgb wrote:She said half, and then dialed it back to less than half. How is that generalizing Drumpf supporters?

As I posted the other day, notice that they are all now claiming to be proud of the "deplorable" group. I've yet to hear a supporter respond "Yes, some probably are deplorable, but not me".

Why do you suppose that is?
Wait...what? As long as you don't suggest everyone is deplorable, you're not generalizing? Drumpf said "some, I assume, are good people". Does that mean he's not generalizing about Mexican immigrants?

People are embracing the deplorable label for a variety of reasons. Some are deplorable and proud of it. These are the guys with the racist chants and comments. Some are embracing the deplorable label as a giant middle finger to Clinton. They may not be racist but are offended (understandably so) when it is suggested that they are racist for supporting drumpf. Some are embracing the deplorable label because they hate Clinton so much they are proud to wear a label that identifies them as anti-Clinton.

This is not a new phenomenon. It's like advocating for gun control by characterizing gun owners as whack job rednecks. Or only "some" as whackjob rednecks. Everyone is going to dig in and prepare for siege. It doesn't matter that you are only talking about some, because every gun owner is going to feel you're trying to lump them into that group.

Let's look at the numbers. Coming, by the way, from someone working for Fox news.

An April poll taken by Reuters found that a large percentage of self-described Trump supporters describe black people as more “lazy” than whites (40 percent), “less intelligent” than whites (32 percent), more “rude” than whites (44 percent), more “violent” than whites (48 percent) and more “criminal” than whites (46 percent).

Another Reuters poll taken in July found that 58 percent of Trump supporters have either a “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable” view of the entire religion of Islam.

These are racist views. If they do not count as “deplorable,” then the word “deplorable” no longer has any meaning

If you can show me verified numbers indicating that 40-50% of Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, then your equivalency will hold water.

Otherwise it's bullshit.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:43 pm

I see you're not running for election.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:50 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I see you're not running for election.

No. I'm satisfied with Mr. Congeniality.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:52 pm

Ah Trump - calling for more profiling - since 'we know who these guys are' but are afraid to do anything about it. I loathe this man. He literally plays into their hands AND IS PROUD OF IT.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:09 pm

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:37 pm

tgb wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
tgb wrote:She said half, and then dialed it back to less than half. How is that generalizing Drumpf supporters?

As I posted the other day, notice that they are all now claiming to be proud of the "deplorable" group. I've yet to hear a supporter respond "Yes, some probably are deplorable, but not me".

Why do you suppose that is?
Wait...what? As long as you don't suggest everyone is deplorable, you're not generalizing? Drumpf said "some, I assume, are good people". Does that mean he's not generalizing about Mexican immigrants?

People are embracing the deplorable label for a variety of reasons. Some are deplorable and proud of it. These are the guys with the racist chants and comments. Some are embracing the deplorable label as a giant middle finger to Clinton. They may not be racist but are offended (understandably so) when it is suggested that they are racist for supporting drumpf. Some are embracing the deplorable label because they hate Clinton so much they are proud to wear a label that identifies them as anti-Clinton.

This is not a new phenomenon. It's like advocating for gun control by characterizing gun owners as whack job rednecks. Or only "some" as whackjob rednecks. Everyone is going to dig in and prepare for siege. It doesn't matter that you are only talking about some, because every gun owner is going to feel you're trying to lump them into that group.
Let's look at the numbers. Coming, by the way, from someone working for Fox news.

An April poll taken by Reuters found that a large percentage of self-described Trump supporters describe black people as more “lazy” than whites (40 percent), “less intelligent” than whites (32 percent), more “rude” than whites (44 percent), more “violent” than whites (48 percent) and more “criminal” than whites (46 percent).

Another Reuters poll taken in July found that 58 percent of Trump supporters have either a “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable” view of the entire religion of Islam.

These are racist views. If they do not count as “deplorable,” then the word “deplorable” no longer has any meaning
If you can show me verified numbers indicating that 40-50% of Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, then your equivalency will hold water.

Otherwise it's bullshit.

Of course the same poll he cited shows Democrats with only about 10% less than Republicans in holding those views. So really we are just talking about who has the biggest basket of deplorables because they both have sizable baskets.

Archinerd · Post by **Archinerd** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:47 pm

It takes one to know one?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:51 pm

Everyone wants a wall. What colour it should be is the real disagreement.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:02 pm

Rip wrote: So really we are just talking about who has the biggest basket of deplorables

Humans suck. Some groups of humans suck more than other groups though. And some leaders cater to the sucky humans instead of trying to help them not suck as much.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, this all sucks.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:47 pm

It is not the tide of the masses that lifts humanity up from the beasts.

Tldr: people suck.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:54 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Everyone wants a wall. What colour it should be is the real disagreement.

All I know is we gotta keep those GD Canad... oh. sorry...

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:23 pm

Not sure how I missed this last week (maybe we were too busy talking about pneumonia or Dr. Oz), but apparently Trump floated the fantastic idea that he would eliminate food safety regulations:

In a fact sheet posted online Thursday, the campaign highlighted a number of "specific regulations to be eliminated" under the GOP nominee's economic plan, including what they called the "FDA Food Police."

“The FDA Food Police, which dictate how the federal government expects farmers to produce fruits and vegetables and even dictates the nutritional content of dog food,” it read.

“The rules govern the soil farmers use, farm and food production hygiene, food packaging, food temperatures and even what animals may roam which fields and when,” the statement continued. "It also greatly increased inspections of food 'facilities,' and levies new taxes to pay for this inspection overkill."

Full disclosure - I worked in food safety (in part) for over a decade. This man is INSANE if he wants to imagine a world were we eliminate food safety regulations. In-fucking-sane. The statement disappeared from his site after he posted it, so maybe he wasn't quite ready to release that position to the general public. Or maybe someone told him how insane it was.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:36 pm

Trump's America is all about the Constitution.

“But the bad part, now we will give him amazing hospitalization. He will be taken care of by some of the best doctors in the world,” the GOP nominee told the crowd at a rally in Estero, Florida. “He will be given a fully modern and updated hospital room. And he'll probably even have room service knowing the way our country is.”

Trump added that “on top of all of that, he will be represented by an outstanding lawyer,” saying Rahami’s case would take years to work its way through the criminal justice system until his eventual punishment is diluted. The Sixth Amendment ensures the right to a fair and speedy public trial and the right to a lawyer for all criminal defendants.

“What a sad situation. We must have speedy but fair trials and we must deliver a just and very harsh punishment to these people,” Trump said, to big cheers from the crowd.

He's talking about Ahmad Khan Rahami, of course, because rights and due process are only for people we know are innocent.

Otherwise it's just a "sad situation," amiright America?

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:31 pm

I just don't have the strength any more.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:45 pm

tgb wrote:I just don't have the strength any more.

Weakness is sad.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:19 pm

Moliere wrote:
tgb wrote:I just don't have the strength any more.
Weakness is sad.

Low energy tgb. Sad!

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:34 pm

When he grows up, Mike Pence would like to shoot someone in the face.

Donald Trump's vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, said he views former vice president Dick Cheney as a role model for the No. 2 job in the administration.

"I frankly hold Dick Cheney in really high regard in his role as vice president and as an American," Pence said in an interview on ABC's "This Week" that was taped on Saturday and aired on Sunday.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:49 pm

Maybe he just wishes he could support a lesbian daughter's rights. It's not always about shooting people in the face ya know!

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:04 am

Smoove_B wrote:Not sure how I missed this last week (maybe we were too busy talking about pneumonia or Dr. Oz), but apparently Trump floated the fantastic idea that he would eliminate food safety regulations:

I saw that last week and thought about posting it, but I'm with tgb, I just don't have the energy any more...

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:25 am

Maybe he pines for torture like the Donald or having the power to turn our foreign policy into a quagmire that limits our range of motion for nearly a generation.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:44 am

malchior wrote:Maybe he pines for torture like the Donald or having the power to turn our foreign policy into a quagmire that limits our range of motion for nearly a generation.

Meanwhile, is Hillary still courting Henry Kissinger? War criminals all around!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:19 am

And Trumputin Jr. is getting flack now for a new tweet comparing refugees to a bowl of skittles.

Even his kids are trash.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:22 am

I went through 5 iterations before I got the damn thing right. You kids today and your newfangled Tweeter stuff!

edit: Issie deleted his attempt to help me figure out what url to use for that tweet. I hope you didn't think I took offense! I was actually grateful you were trying to steer me in the right direction.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:24 am

Nope, just that you'd figured it out by the time I got it posted.