Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[HumblePi]

10 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

What surprised me is that I saw the same HRC ads when I visited AZ that were playing in NJ.  I thought they were have been a little different

The Trump campaign has booked three commercial spots on the nationwide broadcast of Wednesday night's Cubs-Indians match-up, a campaign spokesman said. And Clinton's campaign has booked four spots. Along with the campaigns, the NRA will also have an ad on Wednesday night.

This will be exceptionally interesting since it's a sure thing that there will be a record number of viewers for this last game of the series and although there will be a lot of women watching it will be a predominantly male viewership. (alas, because major league baseball bars women from playing). I am pretty sure that the commercial spots for Hillary will be more appealing to male voters than previous ads. Donald will no doubt prey on fear and insecurities.

Edited November 2, 2016 by HumblePi

[Morrigan2575]

I will keep an eye out tonight during the game to see what spots run.  All of the Trump Ads that I've seen on TV has played on fear it would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.

[clb1016]

And to think I was going to watch the game to escape politics.  Is there no respite?

[millennium]

50 minutes ago, Kitty Redstone said:

I agree.  HRC's platform and ads are directed to people she wants to attract - people who are concerned about the economy, about security, about college expenses, about healthcare, about hard-fought for equal rights, about citizenship, about responsible decision makers ... and who aren't bigots, misogynists, and all-around haters.  If men don't see themselves in any of that, then that is not her problem.  I'm glad she's not wasting time and money trying to reason with unreasonable people.

Believe it or not, there are shades of gray.  People who straddle the fence and maybe need a push in the right direction.   People whom you might label "bigots, misogynists and all-around haters" but who may still share some concerns with you -- like about healthcare, college expenses, security, etc.   I don't think it would have been a waste of time or money to reach out to such people.  

I'm sort of in the middle myself.  I'll vote for Hillary but not out of any great admiration or belief that she's going to change the world.  The best I can hope for with her is that she won't make everything worse (except I suspect she probably will vs. Trump whom I'm sure will make everything worse).   I disagree with Hillary on many points.  I think her immigration policy is amnesty for lawbreakers.   I think the trend towards political correctness will become even worse if she's elected.   I don't believe she can do anything to improve the economy.  I'm not sure I trust her on national security.   She'll be better for LGBT people (I'm one) but in light of what I see as her shortcomings regarding larger issues, that's not much comfort.

So why will I vote for her?  Because she's not insane.  She's not cruel.   She's not hell-bent on vengeance.  She doesn't seem to be in it for ego only.  She doesn't have a history as an inveterate liar and scammer.   She won't gut the middle class to further enrich the one percent.  She won't destroy my health care.  She won't devastate small businesses with overtaxing.   She won't make college impossible for many kids.   She probably won't institute a draft and send those same kids off to war.   And with Hillary, there's lesser chance I'll wake up one morning to a mushroom cloud on the horizon.

I don't think life will improve much under a Hillary administration.   Seeing millions of illegals get amnesty will be difficult.   So will watching refugees from the Middle East brought into the country.   But I tell myself at least America will circle the drain a little more slowly than it would under Donald Trump.

I don't believe voters are as black and white as you seem to feel.  I think there was an opportunity for Hillary to turn some of the people attracted to certain elements of Trump's platform but unable to digest the rest.   And that's why I think she should have gone after demographics like white men who at first glance may appear to be a waste of time but could be having private doubts about Donald Trump. 

YMMV.

Edited November 2, 2016 by millennium

[HumblePi]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/11/02/report-weiner-checks-into-rehab.html

Anthony Weiner has checked himself into a rehab center for sexual addictions.

[fireice13]

2 hours ago, LoneHaranguer said:

The one that comes to mind immediately because of its persistence is the one concerning people coming into this country illegally from Mexico. All he did was object to the Democratic claim that we didn't have to be concerned because they're all just good people looking for work, pointing out that there were criminals coming in too. Somehow that turned into him being a racist who said "Mexicans are rapists". He said no such thing. He wasn't even commenting on Mexicans in general. But, that hasn't stopped Clinton herself from repeating the lie.

If you go to this video and start at about 1:25 you will hear Donald Trump say they're bringing "drugs, crime, they're rapists, and I assume some are good people." Yes, he did say that thing; it's on video. In fact, a lot of the Hillary ads are just video of Donald Trump speaking. I think she should've brought that up in the debates when he said that she was making horrible ads against him. She should've said they're just videos of you speaking, Donald.

I do wonder what the election would look like if someone like Biden was running. Without the sexism and the decades of attacks - would we be looking at a blowout or would it somehow still end up a horse race?

Edited November 2, 2016 by fireice13

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, KerleyQ said:

I can only speak for myself, but I know that I haven't put up a sign in my yard or a bumper sticker on my car because I don't want to deal with what some of Trump's more overzealous supporters might decide to do in response.  People who know me know how I'm voting, but I'm not really eager for some stranger with a hair trigger temper to decide to make an example of me or my property.  So I don't think that people who aren't being super vocal about voting Hillary are ashamed as much as just wary of a group whose candidate has been revving them up to be violent for months.  

That's not what I meant. I meant people who might be lying to pollsters or not admitting to friends. I wouldn't put up a sign either. It's too damn dangerous.  I'm not saying people should be espousing their political views to everyone.  I just don't think there's a huge hidden faction of Trump supporters who are going to sway the polls because they didn't want to admit to a pollster that they're voting for him.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Pixel

[HumblePi]

26 minutes ago, millennium said:

Believe it or not, there are shades of gray.  People who straddle the fence and maybe need a push in the right direction.   People whom you might label "bigots, misogynists and all-around haters" but who may still share some concerns with you -- like about healthcare, college expenses, security, etc.   I don't think it would have been a waste of time or money to reach out to such people.  

I'm sort of in the middle myself.  I'll vote for Hillary but not out of any great admiration or belief that she's going to change the world.  The best I can hope for with her is that she won't make everything worse (except I suspect she probably will vs. Trump whom I'm sure will make everything worse).   I disagree with Hillary on many points.  I think her immigration policy is amnesty for lawbreakers.   I think the trend towards political correctness will become even worse if she's elected.   I don't believe she can do anything to improve the economy.  I'm not sure I trust her on national security.   She'll be better for LGBT people (I'm one) but in light of what I see as her shortcomings regarding larger issues, that's not much comfort.

So why will I vote for her?  Because she's not insane.  She's not cruel.   She's not hell-bent on vengeance.  She doesn't seem to be in it for ego only.  She doesn't have a history as an inveterate liar and scammer.   She won't gut the middle class to further enrich the one percent.  She won't destroy my health care.  She won't devastate small businesses with overtaxing.   She won't make college impossible for many kids.   She probably won't institute a draft and send those same kids off to war.   And with Hillary, there's lesser chance I'll wake up one morning to a mushroom cloud on the horizon.

I don't think life will improve much under a Hillary administration.   Seeing tens of millions of illegals get amnesty will be difficult.   So will watching refugees from the Middle East brought into the country.   But I tell myself America will circle the drain a little more slowly than it would under Donald Trump.

I don't believe voters are as black and white as you seem to feel.  I think there was an opportunity for Hillary to turn some of the people attracted to certain elements of Trump's platform but unable to digest the rest.   And that's why I think she should have gone after demographics like white men who at first glance may appear to be a waste of time but could be having private doubts about Donald Trump. 

YMMV.

Due to our own recession in 2007-08 and the fact that the economy of Mexico began to stabilize and improve, the number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. legally has declined. More non-Mexicans than Mexicans were apprehended at U.S. borders in 2014 and U.S. border apprehensions of Mexicans have fallen to historic lows.

Some back history on immigration reform; In 2013 the Senate easily passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill that would have legalized the status of otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants while putting real teeth in the government's ability to stop future illegal immigration.

The Republican-controlled House wouldn't even vote on it. Had the leaders stood up to all that hollering about "rewarding lawbreakers," the U.S. would today have a far more orderly immigration program. And Trump would have been denied his most prized populist bauble.

Instead, Republicans let the problem fester. When President Obama tried to enforce the weak law on the books -- a brave move that won him the epithet of "deporter in chief" from many immigrant advocates -- Republican leaders gave him no support.

Clinton's vow last March to not deport any undocumented immigrants other than violent criminals and terrorists broke from Obama's more disciplined policy. It also came off as major-league pandering. Most Latinos who've come to the U.S., legally or not, have been culturally a good fit. They work hard. They care for their families. The nationwide flood of concern for the mostly Latino victims of the Orlando terrorist attack reflects the widespread notion that they are "one of us."  Meanwhile, an improving economy and lower birthrates south of the border have halted the net flow from Mexico. Working class Latinos, most of whom were born here and are full citizens, have a growing stake in an immigration program sensitive to labor conditions. Clinton's vision of an immigration system can be large, it can be generous, and it can be welcoming to people from everywhere. But it must have rules.

[MulletorHater]

Speaking of the New York Daily News, the Editorial Board is doubling down on its endorsement of Secretary Clinton because they feel it's that important.

Daily News Is Still With HER!

They sum up their endorsement as follows:

"Donald Trump is all about selling a single repulsively flawed product: himself.

"Hillary Clinton is no saleswoman. Instead, she is a doer who has a historic chance to prove that the U.S. government can actually work to the benefit of its citizen bosses.

"No election in our lifetimes has produced a clearer choice: Clinton over Trump, urgently and by acclamation."

[rcc]

On C-Span earlier this afternoon the president gave a rousing speech in North Carolina talking about Hillary and the need for working together and respect for one another. Off he goes and cut to Trump in Florida right now saying the system is rigged, attacking Hillary. The same old shit, different day with that guy. No originality, no platform issues, nothing but attack, attack, attack. This, less than week before the election.

[Pixel]

Just now, HumblePi said:

Due to our own recession in 2007-08 and the fact that the economy of Mexico began to stabilize and improve, the number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. legally has declined. More non-Mexicans than Mexicans were apprehended at U.S. borders in 2014 and U.S. border apprehensions of Mexicans have fallen to historic lows.

Some back history on immigration reform; In 2013 the Senate easily passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill that would have legalized the status of otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants while putting real teeth in the government's ability to stop future illegal immigration.

The Republican-controlled House wouldn't even vote on it. Had the leaders stood up to all that hollering about "rewarding lawbreakers," the U.S. would today have a far more orderly immigration program. And Trump would have been denied his most prized populist bauble.

Instead, Republicans let the problem fester. When President Obama tried to enforce the weak law on the books -- a brave move that won him the epithet of "deporter in chief" from many immigrant advocates -- Republican leaders gave him no support.

Clinton's vow last March to not deport any undocumented immigrants other than violent criminals and terrorists broke from Obama's more disciplined policy. It also came off as major-league pandering. Most Latinos who've come to the U.S., legally or not, have been culturally a good fit. They work hard. They care for their families. The nationwide flood of concern for the mostly Latino victims of the Orlando terrorist attack reflects the widespread notion that they are "one of us."  Meanwhile, an improving economy and lower birthrates south of the border have halted the net flow from Mexico. Working class Latinos, most of whom were born here and are full citizens, have a growing stake in an immigration program sensitive to labor conditions. Clinton's vision of an immigration system can be large, it can be generous, and it can be welcoming to people from everywhere. But it must have rules.

People also don't seem to be aware that undocumented people pay far more into our social security and other programs through taxes than they get back out, because they can't file tax returns. They are not the drain on our resources that some would like us to believe. One study that I can't find (of course, so I can't prove it) estimates that they pay in $13 billion and only drain about $1 billion.  I extrapolate from that (my own opinion, of course) that ousting them all would potentially cause a collapse of our social safety nets.

[partofme]

5 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

Speaking of the New York Daily News, the Editorial Board is doubling down on its endorsement of Secretary Clinton because they feel it's that important.

Daily News Is Still With HER!

They sum up their endorsement as follows:

"Donald Trump is all about selling a single repulsively flawed product: himself.

"Hillary Clinton is no saleswoman. Instead, she is a doer who has a historic chance to prove that the U.S. government can actually work to the benefit of its citizen bosses.

"No election in our lifetimes has produced a clearer choice: Clinton over Trump, urgently and by acclamation."

I saw the headline on the newstands today and it made me smile, "Damn right we're with her!"  (though this wasn't surprising because their Trump covers always make me smile, google them if you haven't seen any)

Edited November 2, 2016 by partofme

[HumblePi]

3 minutes ago, Pixel said:

People also don't seem to be aware that undocumented people pay far more into our social security and other programs through taxes than they get back out, because they can't file tax returns. They are not the drain on our resources that some would like us to believe. One study that I can't find (of course, so I can't prove it) estimates that they pay in $13 billion and only drain about $1 billion.  I extrapolate from that (my own opinion, of course) that ousting them all would potentially cause a collapse of our social safety nets.

As consumers, illegal immigrants buy goods and services, which stimulates economic growth, while paying taxes and receiving minimal benefits. Studies indicate they are discriminated against and work with unfair wages and harsh conditions, particularly in certain states. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released a report in February 2016, stating that 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States are paying annually an estimated amount of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes, "on average an estimated 8 percent of their incomes."

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

[millennium]

5 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

Due to our own recession in 2007-08 and the fact that the economy of Mexico began to stabilize and improve, the number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. legally has declined. More non-Mexicans than Mexicans were apprehended at U.S. borders in 2014 and U.S. border apprehensions of Mexicans have fallen to historic lows.

Some back history on immigration reform; In 2013 the Senate easily passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill that would have legalized the status of otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants while putting real teeth in the government's ability to stop future illegal immigration.

The Republican-controlled House wouldn't even vote on it. Had the leaders stood up to all that hollering about "rewarding lawbreakers," the U.S. would today have a far more orderly immigration program. And Trump would have been denied his most prized populist bauble.

Instead, Republicans let the problem fester. When President Obama tried to enforce the weak law on the books -- a brave move that won him the epithet of "deporter in chief" from many immigrant advocates -- Republican leaders gave him no support.

Clinton's vow last March to not deport any undocumented immigrants other than violent criminals and terrorists broke from Obama's more disciplined policy. It also came off as major-league pandering. Most Latinos who've come to the U.S., legally or not, have been culturally a good fit. They work hard. They care for their families. The nationwide flood of concern for the mostly Latino victims of the Orlando terrorist attack reflects the widespread notion that they are "one of us."  Meanwhile, an improving economy and lower birthrates south of the border have halted the net flow from Mexico. Working class Latinos, most of whom were born here and are full citizens, have a growing stake in an immigration program sensitive to labor conditions. Clinton's vision of an immigration system can be large, it can be generous, and it can be welcoming to people from everywhere. But it must have rules.

I don't wish to derail with a discussion of illegal immigration.  Suffice to say, I have a different view and my concerns long preceded the rise of Donald Trump.

[Padma]

re: white men in commercials.  It's not so much that men have different general concerns than women--national security, jobs, the economy, health care, education. It's that many Hillary ads (and Hillary herself of course) are designed to speak to and about women and how she supports them and Trump doesn't.

I think re: men what is needed isn't so much a slanted message as just a reminder about all the men who support her that other men might look up to and respect.  We just need to see them more. I've seen one ad with a veteran supporting Hillary and another with a disabled vet listening to Trump spew some idiocy about "knowing more than the generals" or somesuch. But where I am, these don't play often.  In advertising, people like to see others like them, or like their idealized selves. That's why so many "identify" with Trump.

I think the Khizr Khan one is very powerful, but to me, it's aimed more toward women and minorities. Maybe not, but that's how it feels. (Love him!)

Edited November 2, 2016 by Padma

[Morrigan2575]

21 minutes ago, Padma said:

I think the Khizr Khan one is very powerful, but to me, it's aimed more toward women and minorities. Maybe not, but that's how it feels. (Love him!)

Not going to lie, I got a little teary eyed watching that ad.

[Constantinople]

2 hours ago, Darian said:

...I did lose one friend, but he was of the "Hitlery" ilk...

You're ex-friend is a blast from the 90s past.

I thought the up-to-date terms were Killary and Crooked Hillary.

[KerleyQ]

1 hour ago, millennium said:

I think the trend towards political correctness will become even worse if she's elected.

I'm honestly curious, what exactly is the trend towards political correctness, and how is it going to get worse?  I mean, specifically, what is going on these days that bothers you that you see under the umbrella of "political correctness"?  

[BW Manilowe]

For the first time in its 111-year history, the entertainment industry trade publication Variety has endorsed a Presidential Candidate. It's supporting Hillary.

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/variety-hillary-clinton-endorsement-1201905147/

[khyber]

Saw Hillary responding to the Trump heckler earlier today. She turned it up and shut him down.  Earlier this morning I was watching CNN and some republican was saying that Hillary needs to stop yelling.  Its still that old double standard bullshit that she is shrill and yelly. I'm sick of it.

[Kromm]

10 hours ago, Constantinople said:

If Clinton wins, I doubt Obama would fire him before his term is up, or Clinton would afterwards, because of the political cost and because of the difficulty of getting a replacement confirmed.

The FBI can run perfectly well with a career-track Deputy Director in charge, if need be.

If Clinton has to deal with his clear insubornation, that's probably worse.

[HumblePi]

1 hour ago, rcc said:

On C-Span earlier this afternoon the president gave a rousing speech in North Carolina talking about Hillary and the need for working together and respect for one another. Off he goes and cut to Trump in Florida right now saying the system is rigged, attacking Hillary. The same old shit, different day with that guy. No originality, no platform issues, nothing but attack, attack, attack. This, less than week before the election.

This is the entire election boiled down and condensed in just one short paragraph.

Positive vs. Negative, Respect vs. Contempt, Constructive vs. Destructive, Working Together vs. Working Against each other.   "WE and OURS" instead of " I ,ME, MY and MINE "

Edited November 2, 2016 by HumblePi

[millennium]

5 minutes ago, KerleyQ said:

I'm honestly curious, what exactly is the trend towards political correctness, and how is it going to get worse?  I mean, specifically, what is going on these days that bothers you that you see under the umbrella of "political correctness"?  

Again, I don't want to derail, so I put my reply in spoilers.   

Spoiler

 

It's a huge problem and I have neither the time nor the frame of reference to compose the sort of wide-ranging condemnation political correctness deserves.  

All I can do is speak from my own experience.   l'm transgender and have been for an entire lifetime, yet I have been warned on this site in the past for not using "approved" terms when referring to people like myself thanks to the edicts of organizations like GLAAD who appoint themselves arbiters of modern parlance.   I have been called "transphobic" on this site by politically correct crusaders because I have spoken out against Caitlyn Jenner's antics.    Meanwhile we have all seen public figures lambasted on social media for criticizing or making even the most innocuous, slightly humorous observation about Caitlyn Jenner.   The Caitlyn Jenner phenomenon is a perfect example of political correctness gone crazy -- good intentions leading to reprimands, threats and shaming directed towards people who say what they feel rather than what they are told they can feel. 

Meanwhile, colleges and universities have become politically correct minefields where the least perceived slight against the most hyper-sensitive person becomes grounds for reprimand or dismissal, both among students and professors.   Comedians are actually loathe to play college gigs now because inevitably someone will be offended by their humor and they don't need the hassle that follows. 

Lives and careers have been destroyed on Twitter because somebody makes a bad joke, courtesy of political correctness.

Racial profiling in the hunt for terrorists is a no-no, even when certain terrorists tend to fit that profile to a tee.

Little kids have been thrown out of pre-school or arrested for making a "gun" with their fingers or kissing a girl.

Examples keep coming every day, each more ludicrous than the one before it.   It's a dangerous trend that in my opinion stands in direct opposition to the concept of free speech.   I hate it and I'm watching it spread like an invasive weed.   I suspect that with an extreme liberal like Hillary at the helm, proponents of political correctness will feel more empowered than ever before to pursue their campaign of terror against personal freedoms.

 

[LoneHaranguer]

3 hours ago, HumblePi said:

So, make up your damned mind because it's not going to be revoked because you're a damned fool that had more than a year to make a decision and still couldn't make that decision two weeks before the election?

You're forgetting about the millions who did make a decision and had their choice taken away by the primaries.

[khyber]

13 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

This is the entire election boiled down and condensed in just one short paragraph.

Positive vs. Negative, Respect vs. Contempt, Constructive vs. Destructive, Working Together vs. Working Against each other.   "WE and OURS" instead of " I ,ME, MY and MINE "

Can I steal this and post on Facebook?

[MulletorHater]

51 minutes ago, khyber said:

Saw Hillary responding to the Trump heckler earlier today. She turned it up and shut him down.  Earlier this morning I was watching CNN and some republican was saying that Hillary needs to stop yelling.  Its still that old double standard bullshit that she is shrill and yelly. I'm sick of it.

Evidently, she's supposed to wear a tee shirt that reads, "Beat me; kick me.  I LOVE IT!"

Meanwhile, the nectarine nightmare can yell, use foul language, etc. and his trough full of deplorables are okay with it.

[needschocolate]

 Kellyanne was asked by someone on MSNBC about the anti-Semitics at Trump rallies.  She said that the Trump campaign doesn't condone it but people have their first amendment rights and "say stupid things. I see it everyday."  I had to laugh imagining that Donald Trump is one of he people she hears stupid stuff from every day.    

1 hour ago, rcc said:

On C-Span earlier this afternoon the president gave a rousing speech in North Carolina talking about Hillary and the need for working together and respect for one another. Off he goes and cut to Trump in Florida right now saying the system is rigged, attacking Hillary. The same old shit, different day with that guy. No originality, no platform issues, nothing but attack, attack, attack. This, less than week before the election.

Heard another Trump supporter saying that Hillary's problem is that she just keeps complaining about the same things instead of discussing policy.  The reporter didn't let her get away with that.  

It won't be the stress of this election that will kill me, it will be the hypocrisy.

[mustbekarma]

I voted today. I live in a small, Northwestern Ohio town, and there was a steady line of early voters. I just looked at that ballot and was so excited to see Hillary's name on there. I could be voting for the first woman president.

I want it to be so. 

I speak to like minded individuals about who I'm voting for, but I hide all political posts on Facebook. Well, the ones that laud Trump and criticize Hillary. That's about all I get to see.  I've actually liked a pro Hillary post a few times. I just refuse to get sucked into conversations on Facebook.  Not one person on my friend's list has asked for an actual discussion or debate.  For me, Facebook is just a place to hang out and play Candy Crush.

On the other hand, I have posted a #TrumpBookReport or two on Twitter.  My Twitter experience is mostly retweeting stuff George Takei stuff. I only have one follower, so I'm not having much of an influence.

[HumblePi]

42 minutes ago, millennium said:

Again, I don't want to derail, so I put my reply in spoilers.   

  Hide contents

 

It's a huge problem and I have neither the time nor the frame of reference to compose the sort of wide-ranging condemnation political correctness deserves.  

All I can do is speak from my own experience.   l'm transgender and have been for an entire lifetime, yet I have been warned on this site in the past for not using "approved" terms when referring to people like myself thanks to the edicts of organizations like GLAAD who appoint themselves arbiters of modern parlance.   I have been called "transphobic" on this site by politically correct crusaders because I have spoken out against Caitlyn Jenner's antics.    Meanwhile we have all seen public figures lambasted on social media for criticizing or making even the most innocuous, slightly humorous observation about Caitlyn Jenner.   The Caitlyn Jenner phenomenon is a perfect example of political correctness gone crazy -- good intentions leading to reprimands, threats and shaming directed towards people who say what they feel rather than what they are told they can feel. 

Meanwhile, colleges and universities have become politically correct minefields where the least perceived slight against the most hyper-sensitive person becomes grounds for reprimand or dismissal, both among students and professors.   Comedians are actually loathe to play college gigs now because inevitably someone will be offended by their humor and they don't need the hassle that follows. 

Lives and careers have been destroyed on Twitter because somebody makes a bad joke, courtesy of political correctness.

Racial profiling in the hunt for terrorists is a no-no, even when certain terrorists tend to fit that profile to a tee.

Little kids have been thrown out of pre-school or arrested for making a "gun" with their fingers or kissing a girl.

Examples keep coming every day, each more ludicrous than the one before it.   It's a dangerous trend that in my opinion stands in direct opposition to the concept of free speech.   I hate it and I'm watching it spread like an invasive weed.   I suspect that with an extreme liberal like Hillary at the helm, proponents of political correctness will feel more empowered than ever before to pursue their campaign of terror against personal freedoms.

 

I'm in full agreement with you on this whole idea of 'political correctness' and I have also been admonished on this site for using the incorrect pronoun of 'he' or 'she' on the Caitlyn forum. There should be limitations when people choose to go overboard with their insistence of political correctness. It begins to cause harm when it's overblown as you have made reference to. As the pendulum swings from unabashed rage and hatred, to unrealistic diplomacy and political correctness, it will eventually settle from swinging far to the right or to the left and settle in the middle.

But political correctness is far and above different than being respectful and people tend to lean towards the former while ignoring the latter. People that preach about political correctness in public are the same people that will go home and unleash their venom in a disturbing manner, but on the street they will be nice so they don't get into trouble.

People like Donald Trump because as they say 'he is not politically correct'. BUT, and this is a big one, but when people abandon political correctness altogether it's only because they wish to justify their own absurd ideas and they believe that others think the same way but aren't brave enough to accept it, and that is very wrong. That is when the conservative haters and radical nut-jobs started to use that term " you all liberals want to be politically correct " as in "you just don't want to hurt those Jews, homos, blacks and whatever".  Trump followers do love the fact that maybe they don't have to pretend anymore and behave correctly. They know they're haters and want to be haters without judgement and without having to apologize for it.  They want to live their ignorance freely to the fullest, they no longer want to behave respectfully of those they loathe. The most important part of diplomacy is being smart, cool headed, intelligent and sensitive to the dignity of all people.

[HumblePi]

I just posted this on Donald's twitter page. 

[33kaitykaity]

8 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

an extreme liberal like Hillary

HRC is no liberal, much less an extreme liberal.  At best she is a triangulating corporate centrist, same as WJC, the president who brought us deregulation of the media and Wall Street, as well as the infamous Crime Bill.  The only reason HRC is as left as she is on any issue is because Bernie pushed her there.  

[HumblePi]

3 minutes ago, 33kaitykaity said:

HRC is no liberal, much less an extreme liberal.  At best she is a triangulating corporate centrist, same as WJC, the president who brought us deregulation of the media and Wall Street, as well as the infamous Crime Bill.  The only reason HRC is as left as she is on any issue is because Bernie pushed her there.  

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

http://news.groopspeak.com/progressives-need-to-remember-hillary-has-a-more-liberal-record-than-obama/

Let’s look at her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

And Bernie Sanders isn’t by far the most liberal member of the Senate…he is #10, with Senators Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and Cory Booker all voting more liberal than Bernie. When Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, she was rated the 11th most liberal senator in the Senate.

[starri]

She's definitely more liberal than Bill.

[33kaitykaity]

10 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

http://news.groopspeak.com/progressives-need-to-remember-hillary-has-a-more-liberal-record-than-obama/

Let’s look at her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

And Bernie Sanders isn’t by far the most liberal member of the Senate…he is #10, with Senators Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and Cory Booker all voting more liberal than Bernie. When Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, she was rated the 11th most liberal senator in the Senate.

Measuring her against all of the other corporatists in the Senate isn't really a useful barometer to measure whether someone is liberal or not.  This guy, Jimmy Dore, is liberal, and he's as pissed as I am, only he's more direct about it.  

[millennium]

3 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

I'm in full agreement with you on this whole idea of 'political correctness' and I have also been admonished on this site for using the incorrect pronoun of 'he' or 'she' on the Caitlyn forum. There should be limitations when people choose to go overboard with their insistence of political correctness. It begins to cause harm when it's overblown as you have made reference to. As the pendulum swings from unabashed rage and hatred, to unrealistic diplomacy and political correctness, it will eventually settle from swinging far to the right or to the left and settle in the middle.

But political correctness is far and above different than being respectful and people tend to lean towards the former while ignoring the latter. People that preach about political correctness in public are the same people that will go home and unleash their venom in a disturbing manner, but on the street they will be nice so they don't get into trouble.

People like Donald Trump because as they say 'he is not politically correct'. BUT, and this is a big one, but when people abandon political correctness altogether it's only because they wish to justify their own absurd ideas and they believe that others think the same way but aren't brave enough to accept it, and that is very wrong. That is when the conservative haters and radical nut-jobs started to use that term " you all liberals want to be politically correct " as in "you just don't want to hurt those Jews, homos, blacks and whatever".  Trump followers do love the fact that maybe they don't have to pretend anymore and behave correctly. They know they're haters and want to be haters without judgement and without having to apologize for it.  They want to live their ignorance freely to the fullest, they no longer want to behave respectfully of those they loathe. The most important part of diplomacy is being smart, cool headed, intelligent and sensitive to the dignity of all people.

Reply:
 

Spoiler

 

I think the pushback from the Trump side has more to do with people being sick and tired of told what they must think and how they must act regardless of their personal feelings vs. using certain words.   It robs them of the freedom to have an opinion and a say in how society approaches certain subjects.

Going back to the transgender example, I think it's perfectly legitimate for people to have a problem with transgender individuals like myself.   I wish they wouldn't, but I understand it.   It's not what they were raised with.   It's makes them uncomfortable.   It flies in the face of countless generations of cultural conditioning.  But just because GLAAD puts out a set of guidelines, everybody is supposed to change their minds overnight  Political correctness demands that they must see a woman when they look upon Caitlyn Jenner, regardless of what their eyes tell them.   Political correctness tells them they must accept it and they must only say things that are supportive.   I think I read last month that in some places, using the wrong pronoun when referring to a transgender person now qualifies as a hate crime. 

I have always believed that forced acceptance is not really acceptance at all, that it breeds resentment, and in the long run probably does more harm than good.   Case in point: I think it could reasonably be argued that Trump's popularity is fueled, at least in part, by the public's pent-up frustration over political correctness denying them the right to their own opinions and expression on a number of hot-button topics. 

This isn't to say we should have a free-for-all where everybody can be as rude or hurtful as they please.  We all have a responsibility to be respectful of each other, whether or not we agree with another's lifestyle, ideas, whatever.   But I would rather acceptance of any lifestyle or cultural phenomenon come as the result of good education, good examples and good experiences rather than a clampdown on speech and thought.   It takes longer, but I think the result is more enduring and genuine than anything political correctness can accomplish.

 

[madmaverick]

5 hours ago, clb1016 said:

that's why polls taken after Friday's release of the Comey letter show him with a significantly higher rating re: "honesty and trustworthiness."

I saw that poll too, and that's one of the most depressing stats out of this election.

Talk about messaging success/failure all you want, but it fundamentally says to me that a whole lot of people out there do not have good judgement.  Lack the ability to think critically.  Gullible.  Susceptible to disinformation and brainwashing. Ignore facts.  Allow prejudice/misogyny/whatever irrational feeling to override hard facts. 

Independent, factually verified info is out there for all to find (and surely, it isn't that hard to find?) if people wanted to do their homework on the candidates and it's clear for all to see who is the one that is a pathological liar.

But maybe the scary thing is a lot of people don't care about hard facts and objectively verifiable truth and lies when it comes to their perception of "honesty and trustworthiness".  It's all about their "gut feelings". ;)

The scariest thing to me from this election is that such a lot of people can actually buy into what a pathological liar with a narcissistic personality disorder is selling, and rate him as more honest and trustworthy than his opponent of all things!  He has truly mastered the art of the deception with 40% of voters.  And that makes the rest of us want to blech. 

[HumblePi]

1 minute ago, millennium said:

Reply:
 

  Hide contents

 

I think the pushback from the Trump side has more to do with people being sick and tired of told what they must think and how they must act regardless of their personal feelings vs. using certain words.   It robs them of the freedom to have an opinion and a say in how society approaches certain subjects.

Going back to the transgender example, I think it's perfectly legitimate for people to have a problem with transgender individuals like myself.   I wish they wouldn't, but I understand it.   It's not what they were raised with.   It's makes them uncomfortable.   It flies in the face of countless generations of cultural conditioning.  But just because GLAAD puts out a set of guidelines, everybody is supposed to change their minds overnight  Political correctness demands that they must see a woman when they look upon Caitlyn Jenner, regardless of what their eyes tell them.   Political correctness tells them they must accept it and they must only say things that are supportive.   I think I read last month that in some places, using the wrong pronoun when referring to a transgender person now qualifies as a hate crime. 

I have always believed that forced acceptance is not really acceptance at all, that it breeds resentment, and in the long run probably does more harm than good.   Case in point: I think it could reasonably be argued that Trump's popularity is fueled, at least in part, by the public's pent-up frustration over political correctness denying them the right to their own opinions and expression on a number of hot-button topics. 

This isn't to say we should have a free-for-all where everybody can be as rude or hurtful as they please.  We all have a responsibility to be respectful of each other, whether or not we agree with another's lifestyle, ideas, whatever.   But I would rather acceptance of any lifestyle or cultural phenomenon come as the result of good education, good examples and good experiences rather than a clampdown on speech and thought.   It takes longer, but I think the result is more enduring and genuine than anything political correctness can accomplish.

 

 

 

You think we have a responsibility to be respectful to others, and I think we should have a responsibility to be respectful to others, but do they feel the same way?

Abandoning all, and I mean ALL political correctness give license to anyone saying hurtful, disrespectful and dangerously harmful things to any person and even incites violence. Do we want that? No, of course not.  You are absolutely right that myths, ignorance, bigotry and hate for others is overcome through education, good examples and positive experiences.

Personal story here, I grew up in the 'Republican' dark ages of the 60's. I lived in the North so I grew up more or less accepting of other races because I grew up in an integrated society although I can't say the same for my parents, they were pretty prejudiced and perhaps that's part of the reason I was determined not to be. It's not an instinct, it's a learned process. Anyway, I traveled to South Carolina on my very first trip 'South of the Mason-Dixon line' and was shocked at what I saw. No, I didn't see beatings and hangings and black people being dragged by chains from the back of a pickup truck but what I saw was equally as disturbing and unsettling to me. Simple put, it was the disrespect shown to blacks in public. Now you think that what you're experiencing isn't fair, and it's not, and what you're going through is how it will always be, it isn't. But it takes time and patience in addition to that education and positive experiences. As I grew up and became more educated and became more involved with people of color and of other socioeconomic circumstances, I understood clearly that people are just people, like myself. I'm not better because of my skin color and they're no worse for theirs. We're all part of the same human race and deserve to be treated as such.

If we totally remove those social boundaries that tell us that we shouldn't openly disrespect others no matter what their race, religion, gender or beliefs are, then we're pretty much doomed as a democratic society. This is the path taken by countries who suffer under dictatorships, or oligarchy governments. We really don't want to go there. It isn't forced acceptance, it's called mutual respect.

[Menrva]

6 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

If we totally remove those social boundaries that tell us that we shouldn't openly disrespect others no matter what their race, religion, gender or beliefs are, then we're pretty much doomed as a democratic society. This is the path taken by countries who suffer under dictatorships, or oligarchy governments. We really don't want to go there. It isn't forced acceptance, it's called mutual respect.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. We need to hold ourselves and others accountable. It's not persecution and it's not limiting free speech to call people out for being cruel, misogynist, racist or bigoted. If we stay silent every time, if it goes unchecked, then the bad guys get emboldened. They think they have permission to break free from the shadows and preach their hate out in the open.

[Morrigan2575]

So far I've seen 2 Pro Trump/Anti Clinton ads during the World Series. Both were very gloom and doom fear mongering types. 

First one was so bad, low quality and such heavily edited crap you'd think O'Keefe made it. ?

Edited November 3, 2016 by Morrigan2575

[millennium]

13 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

You think we have a responsibility to be respectful to others, and I think we should have a responsibility to be respectful to others, but do they feel the same way?

Abandoning all, and I mean ALL political correctness give license to anyone saying hurtful, disrespectful and dangerously harmful things to any person and even incites violence. Do we want that? No, of course not.  You are absolutely right that myths, ignorance, bigotry and hate for others is overcome through education, good examples and positive experiences.

Personal story here, I grew up in the 'Republican' dark ages of the 60's. I lived in the North so I grew up more or less accepting of other races because I grew up in an integrated society although I can't say the same for my parents, they were pretty prejudiced and perhaps that's part of the reason I was determined not to be. It's not an instinct, it's a learned process. Anyway, I traveled to South Carolina on my very first trip 'South of the Mason-Dixon line' and was shocked at what I saw. No, I didn't see beatings and hangings and black people being dragged by chains from the back of a pickup truck but what I saw was equally as disturbing and unsettling to me. Simple put, it was the disrespect shown to blacks in public. Now you think that what you're experiencing isn't fair, and it's not, and what you're going through is how it will always be, it isn't. But it takes time and patience in addition to that education and positive experiences. As I grew up and became more educated and became more involved with people of color and of other socioeconomic circumstances, I understood clearly that people are just people, like myself. I'm not better because of my skin color and they're no worse for theirs. We're all part of the same human race and deserve to be treated as such.

If we totally remove those social boundaries that tell us that we shouldn't openly disrespect others no matter what their race, religion, gender or beliefs are, then we're pretty much doomed as a democratic society. This is the path taken by countries who suffer under dictatorships, or oligarchy governments. We really don't want to go there. It isn't forced acceptance, it's called mutual respect.

I'm all for social boundaries.  The problem is, political correctness is social boundaries on steroids, manipulated by institutions with agendas.

[HumblePi]

20 minutes ago, millennium said:

Reply:
 

  Hide contents

 

I think the pushback from the Trump side has more to do with people being sick and tired of told what they must think and how they must act regardless of their personal feelings vs. using certain words.   It robs them of the freedom to have an opinion and a say in how society approaches certain subjects.

Going back to the transgender example, I think it's perfectly legitimate for people to have a problem with transgender individuals like myself.   I wish they wouldn't, but I understand it.   It's not what they were raised with.   It's makes them uncomfortable.   It flies in the face of countless generations of cultural conditioning.  But just because GLAAD puts out a set of guidelines, everybody is supposed to change their minds overnight  Political correctness demands that they must see a woman when they look upon Caitlyn Jenner, regardless of what their eyes tell them.   Political correctness tells them they must accept it and they must only say things that are supportive.   I think I read last month that in some places, using the wrong pronoun when referring to a transgender person now qualifies as a hate crime. 

I have always believed that forced acceptance is not really acceptance at all, that it breeds resentment, and in the long run probably does more harm than good.   Case in point: I think it could reasonably be argued that Trump's popularity is fueled, at least in part, by the public's pent-up frustration over political correctness denying them the right to their own opinions and expression on a number of hot-button topics. 

This isn't to say we should have a free-for-all where everybody can be as rude or hurtful as they please.  We all have a responsibility to be respectful of each other, whether or not we agree with another's lifestyle, ideas, whatever.   But I would rather acceptance of any lifestyle or cultural phenomenon come as the result of good education, good examples and good experiences rather than a clampdown on speech and thought.   It takes longer, but I think the result is more enduring and genuine than anything political correctness can accomplish.

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

How can someone that hates, but is forced to be politically correct, going to teach their children the difference between right and wrong? How are open displays of animosity, anger and resentment going to resolve any issues. There's a way to have your voice heard and your opinion count and it shouldn't be filled with emotional outbursts and threats of violence. More wars have been resolved over a conference table than over a battlefield. "Good education, good examples and good experiences" are certainly vital to bringing about change, but how would that come about if people feel entitled to disparaging, insulting, and depriving others of their rights? Nobody can be 'forced' to accept anything, either they become enlightened in some way, or they don't and they remain what they always were. There's no possible way to 'force' someone to change their opinion of others. As you said, accepting transgender is fairly new to society but it's definitely not new historically. Nobody told Trump followers what they should think or feel or believe, they always had that privilege but Donald Trump allowed all that to be visible for the first time probably in their lives outside of their own encapsulated little world.

[yeswedo]

REMINDER: This is the thread for Hillary Clinton discussion. It is not a catch all thread for all politics and election discussion. Posts that are not primarily about Hillary Clinton may be removed.

And please see the Guidelines For This Forum for a refresher.

[Padma]

Glad to see "All In" and the report on polling. Up or down, individually and in aggregate, it was very reassuring for Clinton.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Padma

[HumblePi]

5 minutes ago, yeswedo said:

REMINDER: This is the thread for Hillary Clinton discussion. It is not a catch all thread for all politics and election discussion. Posts that are not primarily about Hillary Clinton may be removed.

And please see the Guidelines For This Forum for a refresher.

I think the lines get blurred as conversations begin with Hillary Clinton and eventually morph into a deeper discussion of issues that involve Donald Trump. It becomes sort of a 'mixed marriage' where things become homogeneous. Sorry that I have strayed off topic and I'll try to focus on one thing at a time.  :)

[KerleyQ]

1 hour ago, HumblePi said:

I'm in full agreement with you on this whole idea of 'political correctness' and I have also been admonished on this site for using the incorrect pronoun of 'he' or 'she' on the Caitlyn forum. There should be limitations when people choose to go overboard with their insistence of political correctness. It begins to cause harm when it's overblown as you have made reference to. As the pendulum swings from unabashed rage and hatred, to unrealistic diplomacy and political correctness, it will eventually settle from swinging far to the right or to the left and settle in the middle.

But political correctness is far and above different than being respectful and people tend to lean towards the former while ignoring the latter. People that preach about political correctness in public are the same people that will go home and unleash their venom in a disturbing manner, but on the street they will be nice so they don't get into trouble.

People like Donald Trump because as they say 'he is not politically correct'. BUT, and this is a big one, but when people abandon political correctness altogether it's only because they wish to justify their own absurd ideas and they believe that others think the same way but aren't brave enough to accept it, and that is very wrong. That is when the conservative haters and radical nut-jobs started to use that term " you all liberals want to be politically correct " as in "you just don't want to hurt those Jews, homos, blacks and whatever".  Trump followers do love the fact that maybe they don't have to pretend anymore and behave correctly. They know they're haters and want to be haters without judgement and without having to apologize for it.  They want to live their ignorance freely to the fullest, they no longer want to behave respectfully of those they loathe. The most important part of diplomacy is being smart, cool headed, intelligent and sensitive to the dignity of all people.

I agree with this.  There will always be people who take things too far and have an agenda.  But, without any political correctness, we have someone like Ann Coulter running around spouting offensive shit and nobody saying "Hey, that's not cool."  I think a lot of people tend to use that "oh, that darn PC crap!" angle to be able to act like complete assholes and because they actually want to dictate what people say.  Like Ann Coulter being pissed that people called her out for calling the President a "r*****" (a word she seems to love using, since it's not the only time I've heard her use it).  Or, the whole "war on Christmas" BS.  The same people who stand loud and proud for their right to offend anyone get offended because you dare to say "happy holidays" instead of Merry Christmas.  And don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of the anti-PC crowd, who like to mockingly say "oh, are you triggered?  Do you need a safe space?" losing their collective shit over a man taking a knee during the National Anthem as a form of peaceful protest.  But, you know, since they've claimed the "anti-PC" label, they're not called out for being their own extreme version of PC. 

Bringing this back around to Hillary - I don't think that the woman who called a segment of the voting public "deplorable" is going to somehow spearhead some over the top exaggerated PC movement.  I've never seen her as someone who is overly concerned with the PC thing.  Something tells me she'd love to be a little less PC than she has to be to be a POTUS candidate (well, to be a female Democrat POTUS candidate, a male GOP candidate can say whatever the fuck he wants).  And, with the trans community, specifically, I think that it's a learning curve now.  People are erring on the side of extreme caution because, for a lot of people, it's a relatively new topic and they don't know much, including what is and isn't offensive.  It will even out at some point.  (Well, unless Trump wins, then it will swing way back over to an anything goes mentality.) 

[clb1016]

2 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

I think the lines get blurred as conversations begin with Hillary Clinton and eventually morph into a deeper discussion of issues that involve Donald Trump. It becomes sort of a 'mixed marriage' where things become homogeneous. Sorry that I have strayed off topic and I'll try to focus on one thing at a time.  :)

Any conversation about one of the two major candidates will of necessity reference his/her opponent.  There really should be one thread about "the candidates" but at this late date it isn't worth changing the existing format.

[madmaverick]

9 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

I think the lines get blurred as conversations begin with Hillary Clinton and eventually morph into a deeper discussion of issues that involve Donald Trump. It becomes sort of a 'mixed marriage' where things become homogeneous. Sorry that I have strayed off topic and I'll try to focus on one thing at a time.  :)

I hear ya, guilty of the same.  Now just let me get the ghastly mental image of any sort of marriage between Trump and Hillary outta my head... :P

Everyone's seen this old interview with Trump where he praises Hillary as a "great woman", right?  Lol. How far he's fallen. ;)  I agree with whomever that suggested Hillary should just use his interview as a campaign ad.  :P

[Menrva]

I wish I felt more comfortable expressing my support for Hillary in public, but I was genuinely afraid I would find my car vandalized. During the primary season, I kept my choice to myself because I did not want to get yelled at by Bernie supporters. (I had a number of rather obnoxious Bernie Bros among my Facebook friends.) I was never a Bernie fan, though I don't dislike him. But I do like Hillary. I like that she's smart and tough. I would curl up and cry in a corner if I had to endure a fraction of what she does on a daily basis. She's the smartest person in the room. 

As I was putting my kids to bed tonight, one of them was nearly in tears. "I don't want Donald Trump to be our president," she said and her voice was shaking. "How could this happen? Why don't more people like Hillary?" Then my little one piped up. "Hillary is awesome!" I hugged them and assured them we'd be ok, but inside, I felt like my heart was being crushed. What do I tell my children if Trump wins? How do we move forward? They're so excited at the prospect of the first female American president.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Menrva

[maraleia]

I'm so irritated. I was all set to canvass for Hillary, Tammy Duckworth and Amanda Howland in the 6th IL Congressional district earlier today and it started raining. At least I have their phone numbers so I'll call them tomorrow after the World Series is over.

I loved Hillary shutting down that heckler. Please let this election go our way. I will be devastated in a way I've never been before. I'm deathly afraid of the alternative.

[madmaverick]

Probably people have already seen this, but the emails Hillary sent that Trump doesn't want you to see. 

I mean, honestly, Trump supporters love to go on about her emails, but what exactly has been scandalous about them that speak to her being a horrible person.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Her "crime" is to want to help a Yemeni girl?  Many have said that the Hillary that comes across in leaked emails and in leaked closed door speeches is actually (surprisingly to some) basically the person she presents herself as to the public.  Someone who cares deeply about public service and thinks deeply and soberly about what needs to be done to make people's lives better.  If that's not what we look for in a presidential candidate, what is?!  Especially when her opponent is all about himself and so lacking in empathy.

Edited November 3, 2016 by madmaverick