The Batshit Crazy Republicans Roundup

[Dalty]

I dunno. We are living post-fact, post-reason and post-intelligence. We could be fucked.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

If I were Trump, I'd focus on winning over on-the-fence voters at tonight's debate by being incredibly and sincerely contrite, and then I'd avoid digging the anti-feminist hole any deeper and focus almost exclusively on Russia. Trump tried to establish an idea earlier on in his campaign that he had a warm relationship with Putin, and it's clearly the card he'd be best off playing.

It's certainly not a trump card, but it's probably the best shot he's got at this point. I gather that he still has a huge chunk of his supporters supporting him--there's probably nothing he could do to cause my Crossville kin to reject him, for example--but he really couldn't afford to lose anyone, and he's clearly lost some.

It's almost bizarre to me that I've seen no one on the right focusing on this. Their hatred of Clinton is so great that they're ignoring a realer and more immediate threat. The same thing's happening in reverse on the left. People on the left and right are debasing themselves by defending actions they would never have even considered defending if they weren't so consumed with loathing for the opposition.

Whatever the case, there's clear and present danger in Russia, and the first candidate to shift focus to that is likely to reap the benefits. This person will look all the more presidential in the process.

Then again, maybe they're both avoiding it for a reason. Maybe Trump's avoiding it for financial reasons. Maybe Clinton's avoiding it because she and her advisers have yet to work out a plan for dealing with Russia. (If Clinton and her advisers had really wanted to sit on their hands about Russia, though, Clinton probably shouldn't have re-levied the hacking charge at Russia during the last debate.)

Maybe Clinton and her advisers are hoping they can continue holding Trump's sword long enough for him to impale himself on it, at which point they will feel more confident of a win and be able to switch their focus to Russia. Maybe they're banking (potentially foolishly) on the Russia situation not getting any worse in the meantime.

Like Dalty suggested in the "New Cold War" thread, Putin may have chosen this specific time to escalate because the country's at loggerheads and the US Government's in transition. The execution of international policy and the flexing of muscles has become secondary to election bullshit. Maybe Putin's putting Hamor and Shechem to the sword while they're still reeling from their circumcisions.

[Adam54]

He trotted out the women who have accused Bill of sexual assault/harassment over the years for a press conference.

Political suicide. They've been throwing around the word "unhinged" for too long. He's finally there.

[neglet]

Completely incoherent most of the night. Didn't answer questions, and whined about his treatment.

My son said, "please don't vote him my Commander-in-Chief."

[Adam54]

At this point, he's becoming a case study in figuring out how many deplorable people there are in this country. I'd guess he tops out at 40% of the vote at very most.

[Jubbers]

At this point, he's becoming a case study in figuring out how many deplorable people there are in this country. I'd guess he tops out at 40% of the vote at very most.

As frustrating, ignorant, and/or racist as they may be, I think referring to them with this phrase is not a good thing.

Some of them are family, after all.

[Dalty]

Some of them don't care what he says or don't particularly like him or think he will make a good president, they just think it's about time the "establishment" was given a kicking.

Then there are those who might just think it's a joke.

Then there are those who would never normally vote for him (or maybe not even vote at all) but, when faced with the near hysteria on Twitter feeds and Facebook and with every actor and commentator telling them not to vote for him might just do it for the heck of it.

Then there are those who probably might have been 50/50 and maybe stayed at home but are fed up with being called deplorable so might do it out of spite.

[Adam54]

Nope. Not gonna happen and I've not been more confident of it at any point during this entire exhausting election. Put your money where my mouth is if you'd like.

[Adam54]

At this point, he's becoming a case study in figuring out how many deplorable people there are in this country. I'd guess he tops out at 40% of the vote at very most.

As frustrating, ignorant, and/or racist as they may be, I think referring to them with this phrase is not a good thing.

Some of them are family, after all.

While I'm truly sorry that some of them are family, I can't think of a better word for this guy or those who would STILL vote for him at this point. Those protesting on his behalf today with lines like "It's better to grab a pussy than BE a pussy" are as deplorable as human beings get, for example.

I'm certainly open to alternatives though.

[Dalty]

As I said, many of them are likely people who don't care and just feel the political process needs a massive punch in the dick.

[Adam54]

And as I said, that tops out at 40% of the country at very most. Not gonna be nearly enough for him to win and yet that's all he's going for anymore.

[Adam54]

Some of them don't care what he says or don't particularly like him or think he will make a good president, they just think it's about time the "establishment" was given a kicking.

Also, these are why Gary Johnson polls at 5-25%, depending on the state (25% is only in his home state of New Mexico. He's nowhere near that in the rest of the country. More 5-15%)

They can't stand Trump, hate Clinton, but want to teach the establishment a lesson for presenting those two as the only options. I know at least three people personally who've explained this to me as their logic for picking that bozo.

[Dalty]

And as I said, that tops out at 40% of the country at very most. Not gonna be nearly enough for him to win and yet that's all he's going for anymore.

That's what they said about Brexit too, and why populist candidates are gathering steam across the Western world.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

While I'm truly sorry that some of them are family, I can't think of a better word for this guy or those who would STILL vote for him at this point.

There are plenty of alternatives. There are nastier ones. There are gentler ones. There are ones of approximate severity. Recycling the same word that came out of Clinton's camp--a word she apologized for using, at that--will strike many as being at best unoriginal and at worst sycophantic and herd-mentality-like. It's on par with "That Orange Guy" and "Killary." It's name-calling. It's ad hominem.

Do both sides do it? Sure. Is it productive in any way? It may be, but I doubt it.

[Adam54]

While I'm truly sorry that some of them are family, I can't think of a better word for this guy or those who would STILL vote for him at this point.

There are plenty of alternatives. There are nastier ones. There are gentler ones. There are ones of approximate severity. Recycling the same word that came out of Clinton's camp--a word she apologized for using, at that--will strike many as being at best unoriginal and at worst sycophantic and herd-mentality-like. It's on par with "That Orange Guy" and "Killary." It's name-calling. It's ad hominem.

Do both sides do it? Sure. Is it productive in any way? It may be, but I doubt it.

I get what you're saying and certainly agree I'm not being original, but the difference between "deplorable" and "That Orange Guy" or "Killary" is that this isn't some childish nickname for a candidate. It's an apt description for one which also fits those who support him. It's not too harsh, it's not too light, it just strikes me as a very, very appropriate way to describe that man and those voting who support what he stands for.

But like I said, quite open to alternatives.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

It did sort of become a nickname when Clinton turned it into a noun, and her nominalization of it is precisely the thing that put it on many of her followers' tongues. It's also a stretch to call a person deplorable based solely on a voting choice. There are any number of reasons a person might vote a certain way. It's potentially simplistic to chalk it up entirely (or even mostly to) to deplorability.

Whatever the case, you could always take a trip to Mr. Roget's Neighborhood. He can introduce you to all sorts of alternatives.

[Dalty]

video posting fail......

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I'm glad to see you stepping up and refraining from blaming the ghost of Steve Jobs.

[Mal Shot First]

It's also a stretch to call a person deplorable based solely on a voting choice. There are any number of reasons a person might vote a certain way. It's potentially simplistic to chalk it up entirely (or even mostly to) to deplorability.

Sure! Reasons such as racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. If you don't find those reasons to be deplorable, do you instead perhaps find them disgraceful or shameful?

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Thanks, Mal! Now Adam'll never crack open that thesaurus!

[Adam54]

Thanks, Mal! Now Adam'll never crack open that thesaurus!

Crack it?! I hardly know it!

[Adam54]

I may have done that wrong, but I'm far too Ipsy to check.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

In all seriousness, though, a person might cast a specific vote for a number of reasons. Stockholm Syndrome could be a factor. So could misinformation, incomplete information, rank stupidity, mental disability, and religious indoctrination. Having grown up in an echo chamber could be a factor. Having never left home and having never met someone whose skin is not white could be a factor. Party fealty could be a factor. Distrust or trust of a newcomer could be a factor. Distrust or trust of a career politician--either earned or unearned--could be a factor. Fear is almost definitely a factor. (There's "phobia" in xenophobia, after all. There's also often bigotry and selfishness, but fear can play a big--and, in some cases, the biggest--part.)

A very specific voting focus could be another factor. I know someone who is voting for someone other than Clinton specifically because Clinton is pro choice. All other policies are secondary to the abortion issue for this person, because s/he believes deeply and completely that legalized abortion is the height of human evil. Yes, Trump has a spotty record on abortion. Yes, social stigmatization, lack of good and honest sex education, lack of programs to ease unwed and impoverished mothers into early parenthood, and the difficulty some have gaining access to or affording contraception all figure in to why abortions happen as often as they do and in the ways that they do. Yes, it's fucked up that male lawmakers have historically had almost exclusive say when it came to a woman's bodily rights. Still, this person feels that Clinton's clear stance on the right to choose is the greatest of evils, and this person genuinely believes s/he is making the moral choice when it comes to what s/he believes is the most important of all the issues facing US voters.

Why does this person feel this way? Probably some combination of some of the factors I mentioned in the first paragraph. Does the person's feeling this way make that person deplorable? I'm not sure it does. I hesitate to condemn a person whose voting inclinations are guided by some combination of the above factors. Such a condemnation feels uncomfortably similar, to me, to the condemnation of all inner city kids or all Black Lives Matter protesters. Some on the right argue that the onus is on the inner city kid to rise above her/his station. It's not always as simple as all that. Also, there's an element of victim blaming there. It shares some features with the blaming of women for their rapes, and it shares some features with the terrorist-until-proven-innocent approach some take toward immigrants.

While some of the cave dwellers who rip apart the enlightened figure in Plato's cave allegory may well be evil, it's not necessarily the case that all the rippers are evil or that their motivations are evil. Hurling epithets at them before they go to rippin' or while they're rippin' isn't likely to stay their hands. At the same time, calling Trump supporters names isn't likely to make them feel you've bothered to consider their points of view, and it's even less likely to make them want to consider your point of view.

Does this mean that none of the Trump supporters is deserving of condemnation? No. Are many deserving of this condemnation? Almost certainly.

Some Trump supporters dislike and/or distrust Trump but dislike and/or distrust Clinton more. Both candidates are incredibly problematic. Trump's more problematic, as far as I can tell, by a long shot, and far more of the positions Clinton currently professes to hold align with my own, but many of the people I grew up with feel the exact opposite way. I fully believe that some of them are just plain dumb, but I also believe plenty of the people who support each of the candidates available to us are plain dumb. At the same time, I remind myself that a dumb person's being dumb doesn't necessarily render as wrong any number of the positions the dumb person holds. I also remind myself that I may, myself, be dumb (or maybe just happy), and that whether or not I'm dumb, I may be wrong.

Some may favor Trump because they feel he's a less known quantity--at least in terms of pushing actual policy. They may feel that Clinton's spent the last twenty-plus years showing her political and ethical hand, and they may deeply dislike that hand. They may be holding out hope that Trump's ridiculousness will keep him from being taken seriously by the other branches of government, and they may feel that having him in office will allow the other branches to roll over him. They may feel the more important votes they're casting are for control of the Senate and House. They may worry that a Clinton presidency would cause further and more severe fracturing in the Senate and House. Potheads may be worried mostly about pot laws. Chelsea Clinton allegedly stated, recently, that her mother would push much harder pot laws. A big part of the pot-friendly community is focusing on how they believe Trump will be the better bet for looser pot laws. Is there any truth to this? Maybe we'll find out at the next debate. Maybe Clinton and Trump will keep their focus on way bigger issues than that. (For many marijuana consumers and growers there is no bigger issue.)

Are these good reasons to favor Trump? I don't think so, but I do my best to understand where some of the supporters are coming from. I probably have more insight than I'd like, considering my childhood. Unfortunately, the recent "revelation" (it's seriously a surprise to me that this was a surprise to some) of Trump's misogyny isn't going to make a dent for some people. Our country's patriarchy is so deeply embedded, and female subjugation is so deeply systemic, that many--some of them, even, women--don't see it as that big of an issue. It looks like that's changing, which is definitely a good thing, but for many, it will remain something less important to them than abortion, states' rights, Second Amendment rights, et cetera.

I should note that I also don't think there should be *no* condemnation. When bad's obviously there, it needs to be addressed. It needs to be discussed and limited. It needs to be given solid examples of good. How do we go about that? That's a good question, and I'm sure there are decent and workable answers out there. I feel fairly confident, however, that calling all Trump supporters deplorable is not it.

[Mal Shot First]

Just to be on the same page, here's Clinton's quote:

You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America.

First of all, she doesn't apply the "deplorable" label to all of Trump's supporters. Whether it's actually half of all of Trump's supporters who are sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, or Islamophobes is another question. What's fairly certain is the second part of her statement - one that you have basically agreed with in your post above as well - namely that there is definitely a sizable portion of Trump's base who fit into those categories and for whom he has become the mouthpiece. Trump's hateful speech has become routine during his campaign, and as such it has to a certain degree become normal or expected. I don't see anything wrong with condemning these dangerous ideas and the people who support them.

In all honesty, my initial reaction to your post above was, "Oh, poor uneducated racist doesn't know any better than to be racist - boo-hoo!" Upon further consideration, though, I kind of see where you're coming from. Ignorant people don't necessarily choose to be ignorant, so you can't really blame them for falling for Trump's rhetoric. It's just infuriating that despite everything that's been revealed about him over the last year, Trump's support still hovers around 40% in the national polls.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I sneaked some changes into my post while you were typing, but I don't know that they were significant enough for you to need to bother with rereading the post. I only mention it because the site never shows when I've made an edit, thanks to my administrator status. Most of the time, I kinda like this, since I do a lot of editing, and since I often get these edits in, I'm guessing, during hours when others aren't likely to be viewing the site. It's only when I make an edit while somebody's in the process of posting that I worry about it. I don't want people feeling I tricked them into making it look like they said something they didn't mean to say.

Clinton certainly used the term more carefully than a lot of her supporters have used it. That's part of the problem, I think. Using the term as a catch-all for every Trump supporter does more than reflect poorly on the people doing it. It has the potential to misrepresent Clinton's position. The right did this on their own, at first, and blamed Clinton for being more general than she was being. It was regrettable to see some on the left more or less picking up the baton and using the term as generally as some on the right claimed Clinton had used it.

And it *is* incredibly frustrating that Trump has the support he has. I so dislike the man that I actively announced (on these boards and IRL) that I'd never vote for him. I did this before he even had the Republican nomination, and I did this despite having spent the last sixteen years keeping mum on my vote for president. I will continue to keep mum on the person for whom I actually cast my vote, but I will at least reveal that it won't be Trump.