Support NeoGAF

[BreezyLimbo]

"It'll be ok once the old people die" is a myth that needs binning. Racism is prevalent across all age groups and the methods of expression might be changing but its existence is not dwindling in any truly remarkable way amongst the youth. The only difference with my generation of white Americans is that they seem to believe they're much less bigoted than they actually are.

Yup. This is all incredibly true.

Now the question is, how many facets in life enable this line of thinking? Parents..culture...media...

...for any progress to be made in 'it'll be ok once the old people die', you'd need a complete upheaval of the system. Of everything. A flip, one would suppose. Otherwise parents will keep passing us this type of prejudice to their children, it will perpetuate in culture because the generation that grows up finds that to be the 'truth', and that is what the media will present to the US and the world when said generation gains the ability to do so, and it'll keep feeding itself.

It's sad to think about. I try not to, but it's something that just permeates in the back of my head every day.

 

[Lord Frieza]

It depends.

For the alarmingly large number of Americans who are still yearning for a return to the salad days of slavery or Jim Crow when the darkies knew their place and white America was isomorphic with America? Lol, no.

For the group (almost certainly the majority of Trump supporters) who are deeply racist but don't consider themselves racist but obediently leap at racist dog whistles masquerading as "attacks on political correctness" because they are in fact deeply racist? No.

For lifelong Republicans who might not exactly mix with queer and non-white people in social situations but really, really don't want to be tarred with the "Racist" or "Bigot" brush and all the social stigma it brings by supporting someone running on a racist and bigoted platform? Yeah, some of those you can definitely peel off and banging this particular drum might be the best way to do it (anecdotally, pretty much all of the lifelong Republicans I know IRL who have abandoned the party this election cycle fall into this category and it is consistently because they don't want that scarlet "R" attached to their vote. It's embarrassing. It should be embarrassing).

Good post. This really isn't aimed at Trump Supporters who are "real" supporters, these are aimed at the diehaed Republicians who are uncomfortable with Trump and his diehards xenophobia and racism but are still holding on to the paety. It's a message to the moderate whites who Trump has really been reaching out to with his sham of a miniority outreach over the last few weeks to remind them that, Hey, you may not be ball of shit, but you you're about to throw with in with a big old pile shit, remember that.

Of course, it will be twisted in a different way, but really, no matter what Hillary is going to be targeted. Might as be targeted for being against racism, homophobia, etc.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm actually really interested to see how Clinton responds to this going public.

I think that there's a clearly right strategy here, and I think her first instinct is going to be very wrong. A major lesson from modern politics, and one that Donald Trump has learned really well, is that you should never apologize or admit to being wrong. About all sorts of things. It doesn't help, except maybe as part of a multi-year process of reinventing a political persona. People who think that what you did or said disqualifies you are validated by your apology. Your most strident defenders have to switch gears from insisting that you did nothing wrong to acknowledging that you're a monster but you apologized so can't we please drop it?

Something that's hurting Clinton more than anything else in this campaign is that she apologized for the email thing. She'd be much better off now if she'd just insisted from the start that she'd fully complied with the law, had done what she had to do to be an effective SoS, and anyway this is perfectly normal for Secretaries of State (like Colin Powell). Does anyone think that her apologizing for the email thing has been good for her? Now it gets brought up every time the press has a chance to ask her questions and every story is free to assume that it's a big problem. Matt Lauer opened the veterans' forum the other day by asking why the email thing was not "disqualifying". That is not a question a candidate wants to be answering.

Meanwhile Trump gives voice to overt racism five times before breakfast and also commits some fraud and bribery and no one really cares. Why not? I think a big part of it is that he's made the question of whether or not what he said and did was wrong a partisan one. There's no continuing news hook here. You can't badger Trump about Trump University because all you're going to get from him is that you're lying scum for bringing it up, and his supporters will cheer.

So I think that there's a right strategy from Clinton here, and it's to double down. Admit that it might not be the most politically correct thing to say - imply that she's a lot harsher about Trump and Trump supporters in private - but talk about the importance of honestly confronting the problem. This is easy stuff. Just go look for a Republican statement on the importance of using "radical Islamic terrorism" and find-and-replace. Talk about how Republicans like Paul Ryan clearly agree with you but are too scared to say it. Blame the media for being so obsessed with finding the truth in the middle that they end up following Donald Trump as he runs to the right.

People really like it when politicians perform a willingness to offend other people that they don't like.

 

[User 463088]

I'm actually really interested to see how Clinton responds to this going public.

I think that there's a clearly right strategy here, and I think her first instinct is going to be very wrong. A major lesson from modern politics, and one that Donald Trump has learned really well, is that you should never apologize or admit to being wrong. About all sorts of things. It doesn't help, except maybe as part of a multi-year process of reinventing a political persona. People who think that what you did or said disqualifies you are validated by your apology. Your most strident defenders have to switch gears from insisting that you did nothing wrong to acknowledging that you're a monster but you apologized so can't we please drop it?

Something that's hurting Clinton more than anything else in this campaign is that she apologized for the email thing. She'd be much better off now if she'd just insisted from the start that she'd fully complied with the law, had done what she had to do to be an effective SoS, and anyway this is perfectly normal for Secretaries of State (like Colin Powell). Does anyone think that her apologizing for the email thing has been good for her? Now it gets brought up every time the press has a chance to ask her questions and every story is free to assume that it's a big problem. Matt Lauer opened the veterans' forum the other day by asking why the email thing was not "disqualifying". That is not a question a candidate wants to be answering.

Meanwhile Trump gives voice to overt racism five times before breakfast and also commits some fraud and bribery and no one really cares. Why not? I think a big part of it is that he's made the question of whether or not what he said and did was wrong a partisan one. There's no continuing news hook here. You can't badger Trump about Trump University because all you're going to get from him is that you're lying scum for bringing it up, and his supporters will cheer.

So I think that there's a right strategy from Clinton here, and it's to double down. Admit that it might not be the most politically correct thing to say - imply that she's a lot harsher about Trump and Trump supporters in private - but talk about the importance of honestly confronting the problem. This is easy stuff. Just go look for a Republican statement on the importance of using "radical Islamic terrorism" and find-and-replace. Talk about how Republicans like Paul Ryan clearly agree with you but are too scared to say it. Blame the media for being so obsessed with finding the truth in the middle that they end up following Donald Trump as he runs to the right.

People really like it when politicians perform a willingness to offend other people that they don't like.

I actually agree with what you think they should do, but I honestly believe this whole thing was intentional. She never allows the press to cover her fundraisers. Like...ever. It's never done. But tonight, they allowed it and she said this. I think this is 100% strategy.

But, if it's not, I agree you double down on it. Because, the Left is eating this up. The right is...the right, and isn't voting for her anyway. You can use this as a sledge hammer to pound Trump's voting block hard. This is especially true if you tie this back to the alt-right and Trump's love affair with Putin.

I'd come out and say "What I said is harsh. But, we need to look at what we're dealing with right now. A major candidate for President of the United States has flooded one of our major parties with white supremacists, the alt-right and Putin apologists. He is demeaning women, Mexicans, immigrants, and even our military and honored dead. This is not the Republican Party. This is not the party of Lincoln or Reagan. This is fear and hatred and ego."

 

[stonesak]

Trump supporters are very triggered right now.

 

[Timedog]

Attacking supporters is a risky proposition strategically.

 

[Oni Jazar]

Right or not it was a stupid thing to say.

 

[Squire]

This is a problematic attitude that simultaneously fails to recognize reality (yes they are part of America too) and denies a fundamental belief in redemption and the ability of people to change for the better. Categorizing people as irredeemable, or reducing them to their worst elements, is itself a cancer.

Trump is a social cancer, I couldn't agree more.

 

[stonesak]

It will be very interesting to see if other Democrat politicians back her up or distance themselves from her statement. Will be very telling.

 

[djplaeskool]

Haha.
So when she calls people out, everyone's all "Oh noooo, Hillary, don''t say that."

Naw man. Fuck that.
Call 'em out.
The undercurrent of fervent Trump support is scummy as hell, and that 'other half' knows they've thrown their hat in with the worst segments of the political spectrum

Every time you hear about what goes on inside of Trump rallies, or behind closed doors, EVERY SINGLE TIME, you are painted an ugly picture.
I have no reservations about it being called ugly. None.

 

[Lo_Fi]

- insulting their voters only fuels their felt victimhood and strengthens them while increasing the rift in society.

What insults?

Attacking supporters is a risky proposition strategically.

What attacking happened?

I find it so interesting that people will reflexively get offended by a label like "racist" and go "nuh-uh!" but don't actually provide any argument as to why supporting a racist isn't a racist act, or why the candidate might not be racist.

Don't wanna be called a racist? You have 3 options:
1) Provide an argument as to why the candidate you're supporting is not racist.
2) Provide an argument as to why supporting a racist candidate is not a racist act.
3) Stop supporting a racist candidate.

 

[Neuromancer]

that "basket of deplorables" is a very large portion of america. it is america. they are americans.

She meant that they do not reflect American values and ideals. Not that they are literally not Americans.

 

[Lovely Salsa]

I wont be looking megan fox the same again

Edit: I googled it and fox is no trump supporter, why would you lie

 

[Intheflorsh]

Don't think this will really hurt her, the people she's referring to aren't going to change their minds at this point. It's the center leaning republicans she needs to sway, and pointing out how deplorable their party is getting is one way to do it.

 

[Condom]

Clinton went on to say that some of these people were "irredeemable" and "not America."

Comrade Clinton

 

[fantomena]

This might just give them more fuel. Try a different approach.

 

[Steel]

I wont be looking megan fox the same again

Edit: I googled it and fox is no trump supporter, why would you lie

The list is of what people who are Trump supporters follow on facebook.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

My friend told me once that America is lost, because 50% of the population, hates the other 50%.

I'm not disagreeing with her, but I think it's about damn time debate, recourse and conflicts started being handled with empathy, respect and less antagonization.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

Saying they're "not America" reminds me of the Muslims saying "Radical Islamists are not part of Islam".

 

[EmpressInYellow]

My friend told me once that America is lost, because 50% of the population, hates the other 50%.

I'm not disagreeing with her, but I think it's about damn time debate, recourse and conflicts started being handled with empathy, respect and less antagonization.

In general, I don't disagree.

In this specific instance, we're talking about actual white nationalists. Nazis.

If there's one group I feel safe declaring we do NOT need to show more empathy and respect towards, it's actual Nazis.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Here is proof backing up Clinton:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/ppp-trump-supporters-obama-muslim

 

[wildfire]

The press is going to try and equate misogynists, racial supremacists and troglodytes with poor, marginalized, and nationally disparaged people?

*bangs head on desk*

Some if not most of Trump supporters are poor, marginalized, and nationally disparaged in certain ways.

They are also deplorable and definitely Un-American (as in literally they advocate for changes that defy Constitutional precedents) but by being born and raised here they share many of our problems.


How they choose to explain why these problems exist and how they want to deal with them makes them deserving to be attacked and we should attack them for it but we should acknowledge that while improving our own lives we'll have to directly or indirectly improve theirs since they are fellow citizens.

I'm actually really interested to see how Clinton responds to this going public.

I think that there's a clearly right strategy here, and I think her first instinct is going to be very wrong. A major lesson from modern politics, and one that Donald Trump has learned really well, is that you should never apologize or admit to being wrong. About all sorts of things. It doesn't help, except maybe as part of a multi-year process of reinventing a political persona. People who think that what you did or said disqualifies you are validated by your apology. Your most strident defenders have to switch gears from insisting that you did nothing wrong to acknowledging that you're a monster but you apologized so can't we please drop it?

Something that's hurting Clinton more than anything else in this campaign is that she apologized for the email thing. She'd be much better off now if she'd just insisted from the start that she'd fully complied with the law, had done what she had to do to be an effective SoS, and anyway this is perfectly normal for Secretaries of State (like Colin Powell). Does anyone think that her apologizing for the email thing has been good for her? Now it gets brought up every time the press has a chance to ask her questions and every story is free to assume that it's a big problem. Matt Lauer opened the veterans' forum the other day by asking why the email thing was not "disqualifying". That is not a question a candidate wants to be answering.

Meanwhile Trump gives voice to overt racism five times before breakfast and also commits some fraud and bribery and no one really cares. Why not? I think a big part of it is that he's made the question of whether or not what he said and did was wrong a partisan one. There's no continuing news hook here. You can't badger Trump about Trump University because all you're going to get from him is that you're lying scum for bringing it up, and his supporters will cheer.

So I think that there's a right strategy from Clinton here, and it's to double down. Admit that it might not be the most politically correct thing to say - imply that she's a lot harsher about Trump and Trump supporters in private - but talk about the importance of honestly confronting the problem. This is easy stuff. Just go look for a Republican statement on the importance of using "radical Islamic terrorism" and find-and-replace. Talk about how Republicans like Paul Ryan clearly agree with you but are too scared to say it. Blame the media for being so obsessed with finding the truth in the middle that they end up following Donald Trump as he runs to the right.

People really like it when politicians perform a willingness to offend other people that they don't like.

I largely agree with this. I prefer that Clinton apologize for the email but it is correct to say she would be better off doubling down back then and definitely do so now.

 

[NobleGundam]

Why attack trump supporters now right before election day? That's not strategy. Nor risky. Just straight up an unnecessary thing to say because most know that this has brought out the worst in everyone. And most of his supporters are bigots so its pretty pointless to say which in turn will be used against her no doubt.

 

[wildfire]

The right is...the right, and isn't voting for her anyway.

The right is voting for her. Not in amazingly noticeable numbers but I do know a couple of diehard Republicans that believe Trump should be stopped and they are voting for Hillary as a consequence.


We even have public statements of more prominent members on record saying as such.

 

[Gaogaogao]

this all checks out

 

[Elandyll]

She would normally be in trouble, except for the overwhelming evidence that she is right, as opposed to Romney's comment which was dumb and so very 1 percenter.

The support of white supremacists like Duke alone gives the argument plenty of merit, and if I was Trump I would leave her comments alone.
If he tries to make these comments a big issue, he'll only bring more fuel to the fire and have the media fact check his campaign around racism and racist support, which is the last thing he wants if he is trying to court the 2-5% of minorities that he hopes to sway.

 

[Nikodemos]

I find it highly deplorable that American electioneering has devolved to such a degree that strategists have decided to use marketing theory's nuclear option.

"Half the people who like 'thing' are shit.You're not one of them, are you? Then why would you associate with them?"

 

[2MF]

Her mistake was to say "half" instead of "some". Even if she's right, it makes it easier for the media to go after her, since she's saying 1 out of 5 Americans are deplorable.

 

[Nikodemos]

Her mistake was to say "half" instead of "some". Even if she's right, it makes it easier for the media to go after her, since she's saying 1 out of 5 Americans are deplorable.

Lack impact if it's just 'some'. Sway-supporters can just go "well, I don't know anyone like that, so they can't be very many".

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Dumb move

She should be working on bringing everyone together. See DNC.

We'll see what happens

 

[AxelFoley]

Best first post I've read in a while - well said.

FOH

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Dumb move

She should be working on bringing everyone together. See DNC.

We'll see what happens

How do you bring together the Democratic coalition and people like Alex Jones and the white nationalists Trump has surrounded himself with?

 

[mjp2417]

I find it highly deplorable that American electioneering has devolved to such a degree that strategists have decided to use marketing theory's nuclear option.

"Half the people who like 'thing' are shit.You're not one of them, are you? Then why would you associate with them?"

You find it deplorable that voters might not want to be associated with white supremacists? Why?

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

How do you bring together the Democratic coalition and people like Alex Jones and the white nationalists Trump has surrounded himself with?

you don't, but you also don't insult them as these are people you will be governing

Rip trump all day...just not his people imo

 

[Poltergust]

Dumb move

She should be working on bringing everyone together. See DNC.

We'll see what happens

Nah, this is in line with comments she has made previously. She has said that you can't change some people, and this is one group that definitely will not change.

A significant portion, most likely a majority, of Trump supporters are a lost cause. There is nothing she can do or say to win them over, so why even waste time and resources bothering to do so?

 

[EmpressInYellow]

you don't, but you also don't insult them as these are people you will be governing

Rip trump all day...just not his people imo

I dunno - "showed insufficient respect to actual Nazis" is pretty low on the list of sins a politician can commit, I think.

And lest people think I'm being hyperbolic with the "Nazis" stuff - I'm talking about people with actual "1488" tattoos and the like.

 

[djplaeskool]

Rip trump all day...just not his people imo

A sizable portion of "his people" deserve every speck of derision, chief among them are a number of people he's pulled in to drive his campaign.
Don't get the wool pulled over your eyes by this Radical America posing as "Real" America. The core of his campaign now and in the primaries is founded on extreme ideologies.

Edit: I understand that, as a presidential candidate, you should try to express willingness to be a president for all people, but what we're dealing with are elements of the right-wing that have been hounding the Clintons for over 25 years, so I'm not crossed when she goes after it like this. All the make up of Trump's campaign has proven is that all that "right-wing conspiracy" talk Hillary has hinted at for years and years doesn't only exist, but it's now in charge of the rival campaign.

 

[robochimp]

Why attack trump supporters now right before election day? That's not strategy. Nor risky. Just straight up an unnecessary thing to say because most know that this has brought out the worst in everyone. And most of his supporters are bigots so its pretty pointless to say which in turn will be used against her no doubt.

She's asking the "moderate" Trump supporters if they really want to be Trump supporters. I like the strategy here. What are we going to do, start defending truly backwards despicable people now?

 

[wildfire]

Her mistake was to say "half" instead of "some". Even if she's right, it makes it easier for the media to go after her, since she's saying 1 out of 5 Americans are deplorable.

Considering the stats on racism alone she's still lowballing it by 5-10 points depending on which stats you consider to be reliable.

Nah, this is in line with comments she has made previously. She has said that you can't change some people, and this is one group that definitely will not change.

A significant portion, most likely a majority, of Trump supporters are a lost cause. There is nothing she can do or say to win them over, so why even waste time and resources bothering to do so?

People can change but the investment required is totally not worth it. We're better off dragging them along with us to prosperity and a new form of normalcy (that they fear).

 

[2MF]

Considering the stats on racism alone she's still lowballing it by 5-10 points depending on which stats you consider to be reliable.

I'm not saying she's wrong. Just questioning her plan of deriding 21% of the country as a presidential candidate.

 

[teruterubozu]

This isn't smart going into the debates. She just set the bar really low for Trump.

 

[wildfire]

I'm not saying she's wrong. Just questioning her plan of deriding 21% of the country as a presidential candidate.

A president isn't a dictator but they will commit to actions a certain segment of the population are totally against. As a president you have to force a certain precentage of people into the direction you want no matter the situation.

What Clinton could say is you're totally wrong but I'm not here to make your lives worse. We will all get better. Even though you may prefer getting better at the expense of other citizens getting worse but I don't and over time I hope you'll realize taking a path that is mutually beneficial for all Americans is better than your zero sum strategy.

 

[Blader]

Something that's hurting Clinton more than anything else in this campaign is that she apologized for the email thing. She'd be much better off now if she'd just insisted from the start that she'd fully complied with the law, had done what she had to do to be an effective SoS, and anyway this is perfectly normal for Secretaries of State (like Colin Powell). Does anyone think that her apologizing for the email thing has been good for her? Now it gets brought up every time the press has a chance to ask her questions and every story is free to assume that it's a big problem. Matt Lauer opened the veterans' forum the other day by asking why the email thing was not "disqualifying". That is not a question a candidate wants to be answering.

I'm not sure how a lack of apology makes the issue go away, especially when you have people today who keep saying they wish Hillary would apologize and that would put he issue to bed for them, not realizing she has done so several times already. She's already so often depicted as cold and calculating, I can't see how a firm insistence on doing nothing wrong -- particularly after Comey publicly lambasted her for her email practices -- plays well with people.

 

[Mental Atrophy]

I'm bothered that somebody could call a quarter of Americans irredeemable. I'm even more bothered by the prospect that she might be right.

 

[wildfire]

This isn't smart going into the debates. She just set the bar really low for Trump.

I think she's prepping herself for a fight.

If she is Trump better bring his A game.

 

[teruterubozu]

I think she's prepping herself for a fight.

If she is Trump better bring his A game.

That might make for fun TV, but it's absolutely shitastic from a policy standpoint. This election is a mess.

 

[Nikodemos]

You find it deplorable that voters might not want to be associated with white supremacists? Why?

In marketing, you're generally supposed to refrain from employing attack tactics on the opposite demographic. Going to these means the other approaches would not be useful (or maybe already expended), due to the quality (or lack thereof) of your target audience (potential voters, in this case).

 

[stonesak]

Can we just dump Trump/Clinton and have Pence vs Kaine? Please?

 

[teruterubozu]

Can we just dump Trump/Clinton and have Pence vs Kaine? Please?

The VP debate will probably have the most substance, ironically. The presidential level has too much distracting crap.

 

[Kathian]

This is not a great omen. One of my criticisms of others on the left is the inability to realise that by panelling something doesn't mean it goes away.

Why not instead say how you think these issues can be raised and ensured it's not continued on for another generation.

Every Trump supporter will see this aimed at them. Including Women and Minorities. But frankly there are soft Republicans and soft Trump supporters. They may not differentiate these comments from themselves.

Overall it seems like the establishment lecturing. Wrong way to go about these things - shes been in politics long enough to know more is done by challenging someone and their views than name calling. She should be telling them their wrong and pushing them to see the other side of Trumps comments.

It's a bit concerning that still every time Clinton comes out something other than her platform is the story. This is dangerously becoming a race about personalities when she originally wanted it to be about more Obama or more Bush.