The Conservative Media War Over Donald Trump (1 Viewer)

[ALiberalModerate]

it's what leads to the same establishment candidates winning the nomination every time. of course, it's very likely that the Democratic nominee will be the establishment candidate, as well.

Of course, but the difference is that the Democratic Candidate will not have to run as an extremist to get the nomination.

 

[Helix]

Of course, but the difference is that the Democratic Candidate will not have to run as an extremist to get the nomination.

i doubt that the Republican candidate will, either. he just pretty much needs to sit there, wait for the fringe candidates to tear each other apart and split the vote, and then rebrand the same old trickle down economics platform as populism.

 

[tuhaybey]

For instance, no one I've heard is talking about 100% secure border, but a border that isn't a sieve.

Maybe you're not totally following what I'm saying on that. I am not saying that the right is saying "we need a 100% secure border." I'm saying that they're dumbing it down so far that they're just saying "we need a secure border" without actually defining what that means. By not announcing an actual goalpost, they can just always move it. For example, illegal border crossings are presently lower than they've been for decades, but that seems to have no effect at all on their assessment that the border is "not secure." So, I assume that no matter what happened on the border, they would just continue that talking point, at least as long as it is politically useful to them.

Of all the shouts of 'racism', 'racist' and bigot, they are far more often hurled from the left at the right more often than not without substance, and not the other way around.

You aren't following what I'm saying on this either. The right often uses the word "racist" not to mean anything related to actual racism at all. Many of them just use it as code for the n-word. They randomly call black people "racist" just as a general purpose insult rather than as a way to accuse them of actually trying to oppress a race. That's an example of the racial coding the right is always doing. You said that you hadn't heard any of these points raised before, but I assume that you at least have heard discussions about the Republican racial coding, right? That's what I was giving examples of.

You keep throwing around the term white nationalists as if it were some sort of code or substitute for the KKK or white supremacists and apply that Republicans / Conservatives, when those two groups are distinctly different with little overlap, painting with an incorrect and overly broad brush.

The distinction between white nationalists and white supremacists, which some white nationalists think is a super important difference, is totally irrelevant to normal Americans. It's like one faction of child molesters saying that they're totally unlike that other faction of child molesters because that other faction rapes kids under 12 where they only rape 13-15 year olds... Nobody cares. White nationalists and white supremacists are just subtle variations on the same stink. Neither have any place in the modern world and neither will ever be given any comfort from decent or intelligent people.

 

[eohrnberger]

. . .
You aren't following what I'm saying on this either. The right often uses the word "racist" not to mean anything related to actual racism at all. Many of them just use it as code for the n-word. They randomly call black people "racist" just as a general purpose insult rather than as a way to accuse them of actually trying to oppress a race. That's an example of the racial coding the right is always doing. You said that you hadn't heard any of these points raised before, but I assume that you at least have heard discussions about the Republican racial coding, right? That's what I was giving examples of.
. . . .

It seems rare the case when a Republican or a Conservative even uses the term. It's far more frequent that the term is used by Democrats / Liberals / Progressives and far more often incorrectly claiming what is racists, which it isn't.

I believe that you have an incorrect impression or understanding of what Republicans or Conservatives are saying, and I don't buy into this 'coded language' of yours (and others).

 

[eohrnberger]

Maybe you're not totally following what I'm saying on that. I am not saying that the right is saying "we need a 100% secure border." I'm saying that they're dumbing it down so far that they're just saying "we need a secure border" without actually defining what that means. By not announcing an actual goalpost, they can just always move it. For example, illegal border crossings are presently lower than they've been for decades, but that seems to have no effect at all on their assessment that the border is "not secure." So, I assume that no matter what happened on the border, they would just continue that talking point, at least as long as it is politically useful to them.
. . .

Not that long ago there were thousands of young marching across the border and turning themselves in. Doesn't seem all that secure to me, especially when they flooded ever possible temporary housing facility for processing.

Frankly, they all should have been given a lift back to where they came from, rather than to be allowed in country as illegal aliens. A national border is a national border, and existing federal laws are existing federal laws.

 

[tuhaybey]

It seems rare the case when a Republican or a Conservative even uses the term. It's far more frequent that the term is used by Democrats / Liberals / Progressives and far more often incorrectly claiming what is racists, which it isn't.

I believe that you have an incorrect impression or understanding of what Republicans or Conservatives are saying, and I don't buy into this 'coded language' of yours (and others).

I mean, the alternative to code is that they just literally babble nonsensical gibberish an awful lot...

It really isn't plausible that they aren't doing it on purpose. The frequency with which they use racially-charged phrases to describe minorities, for example, compared to how often they use those same phrases to describe non-minorities is night and day different. That couldn't be a coincidence.

For example, what do you think they are referring to when they talk about "urban culture"?

Not that long ago there were thousands of young marching across the border and turning themselves in. Doesn't seem all that secure to me, especially when they flooded ever possible temporary housing facility for processing.

Frankly, they all should have been given a lift back to where they came from, rather than to be allowed in country as illegal aliens. A national border is a national border, and existing federal laws are existing federal laws.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Reasoning at that level of generalization and simplification gives the right infinite wiggle room. The stance of "we should secure the border because it is the law!" doesn't actually mean anything in practical reality. It is all way more complicated than that. The security of the border is about matters of degree and how that trades off with the resources we want to spend on it. The law does not say that we should expend every possible resource securing the border, it says we can spend up to $x, we have have Y border patrol agents, we have to follow Z procedures, etc., and of course that is exactly what border patrol does.

My view of what is so broken about the immigration debate is that the right is analyzing the issue exclusively in bumper sticker slogans when it really should be analyzing it in book form. A debate that is driven by radical over-simplification and the use of catchy sounding zingers is making it basically impossible to resolve the actual policy issues.

 

[eohrnberger]

I mean, the alternative to code is that they just literally babble nonsensical gibberish an awful lot...

It really isn't plausible that they aren't doing it on purpose. The frequency with which they use racially-charged phrases to describe minorities, for example, compared to how often they use those same phrases to describe non-minorities is night and day different. That couldn't be a coincidence.

For example, what do you think they are referring to when they talk about "urban culture"?

Urban culture is the culture of towns and cities. The defining theme is the presence of a great number of very different people in a very limited space - most of them strangers to each other.[SUP][1][/SUP] This makes it possible to build up a vast array of subcultures close to each other, exposed to each other's influence, but without necessarily intruding into people's private lives.[SUP][2][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_culture
As opposed to

rural


1 adj Rural places are far away from large towns or cities.
usu ADJ n (Antonym: urban) These plants have a tendency to grow in the more rural areas.


2 adj Rural means having features which are typical of areas that are far away from large towns or cities.

rural culture definition | English dictionary for learners | Reverso

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Reasoning at that level of generalization and simplification gives the right infinite wiggle room. The stance of "we should secure the border because it is the law!" doesn't actually mean anything in practical reality. It is all way more complicated than that. The security of the border is about matters of degree and how that trades off with the resources we want to spend on it. The law does not say that we should expend every possible resource securing the border, it says we can spend up to $x, we have have Y border patrol agents, we have to follow Z procedures, etc., and of course that is exactly what border patrol does.

My view of what is so broken about the immigration debate is that the right is analyzing the issue exclusively in bumper sticker slogans when it really should be analyzing it in book form. A debate that is driven by radical over-simplification and the use of catchy sounding zingers is making it basically impossible to resolve the actual policy issues.

 

[tuhaybey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_culture
As opposed to
rural culture definition | English dictionary for learners | Reverso

So you're contending that when Republicans talk about "urban culture" leading to riots and whatnot, they mean the "culture of towns and cities"? Like, you're able to say that with a straight face?

 

[eohrnberger]

So you're contending that when Republicans talk about "urban culture" leading to riots and whatnot, they mean the "culture of towns and cities"? Like, you're able to say that with a straight face?

So which cultural segment of the population is rioting, burning down their businesses and looting? Yeah, that culture.

That particular culture is a segment of the larger "urban culture".

Criticize that culture? Sure. Especially when it manifests itself in rioting, burning down their businesses and looting and general mayhem, all of which are counter productive to actually improving anything in their neighborhoods.

 

[radioman]

You know if the Democratic primary base was like the GOP primary base, Lyndon Larouche would be a real contender every election cycle. The GOP's base constant clamoring for assholes and nutjobs is what kills them in the general elections.

Perpetual candidate Lyndon LaRouche was a Dem?
I always thought of him as a libertarian.
Before there was a Ron Paul, there was Lyndon LaRouche.
I would never vote for a guy like Larouche.....his lips don't move when he talks.
I think he's a robot.
Spooky.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Perpetual candidate Lyndon LaRouche was a Dem?
I always thought of him as a libertarian.
Before there was a Ron Paul, there was Lyndon LaRouche.
I would never vote for a guy like Larouche.....his lips don't move when he talks.
I think he's a robot.
Spooky.

Yep Democrat and the only thing worse than him are his cult followers. I think among other things he coined the term "October Surprise".

 

[cpwill]

he won't be the nominee. he won't be president. i doubt that he'll even have an ideological impact. his contributions to the race will be as a carnival sideshow and a further dilution of the NotBush vote. and that's it.

Mostly This. The main ideological point I see is whether or not he gets' used as a stick to beat any Republican who talks about immigration.

 

[tuhaybey]

So which cultural segment of the population is rioting, burning down their businesses and looting? Yeah, that culture.

That particular culture is a segment of the larger "urban culture".

Criticize that culture? Sure. Especially when it manifests itself in rioting, burning down their businesses and looting and general mayhem, all of which are counter productive to actually improving anything in their neighborhoods.

Ok, so why were you denying that they use code if you are in fact fully aware that they do?

What drives things like riots is economic inequality, brutal policing, racial discrimination and so on. Guess what- in times in our history when white areas have been as poor, and inequality has been as bad, as it is in inner city Baltimore, those white areas have rioted too. In fact, during the Great Depression we had massive riots on a scale never seen since and they were mostly in small and medium white towns. Heck, white people don't even seem to really need the poverty and inequality to riot. Look at that insane riot in Canada a few years back over a hockey game or the massive biker shootout the other month in Texas.

So, to just blurt out that it is because they're black is, like all racism, utterly stupid and ignorant. I don't get what the right's problem is with this issue. Why can't you guys figure it out? Everybody else figured it out generations ago. There is no excuse for behaving this way. It's like you guys aren't even trying to get your heads right on it.

 

[Helix]

Mostly This. The main ideological point I see is whether or not he gets' used as a stick to beat any Republican who talks about immigration.

yeah, they're probably already asking other candidates what they think about his comments. my response would be "why are you asking me about that idiot? ask me about my plan to fix immigration, not his."

 

[eohrnberger]

Ok, so why were you denying that they use code if you are in fact fully aware that they do?

What drives things like riots is economic inequality, brutal policing, racial discrimination and so on.

So you are saying that it's worse for that minority now than it was back in the 60's when Martin Luther and others conducted their peaceful demonstrations?

I'm not thinking so. What I think is that there is a distinct lack of self discipline and the result of the destruction of the black family unit and the black community due to the misbegotten and ill conceived 'War on Poverty', which hasn't been successful and hasn't been effective. Rather, these policies have destroyed these vital things in a vibrant community and business sector that was once in place back in the early post WW II era.

Guess what- in times in our history when white areas have been as poor, and inequality has been as bad, as it is in inner city Baltimore, those white areas have rioted too. In fact, during the Great Depression we had massive riots on a scale never seen since and they were mostly in small and medium white towns. Heck, white people don't even seem to really need the poverty and inequality to riot. Look at that insane riot in Canada a few years back over a hockey game or the massive biker shootout the other month in Texas.

You are equating those instances of mayhem with the race based and race baiter instigated riots of recent months? Yeah, that's rich. They have no similarities other than the death and destruction.

So, to just blurt out that it is because they're black is, like all racism, utterly stupid and ignorant. I don't get what the right's problem is with this issue. Why can't you guys figure it out? Everybody else figured it out generations ago. There is no excuse for behaving this way. It's like you guys aren't even trying to get your heads right on it.

I dunno, but based on your comments, I think it's you and others of these opinions who may not have their 'heads right' about it.

 

[tuhaybey]

So you are saying that it's worse for that minority now than it was back in the 60's when Martin Luther and others conducted their peaceful demonstrations?

I'm not thinking so. What I think is that there is a distinct lack of self discipline and the result of the destruction of the black family unit and the black community due to the misbegotten and ill conceived 'War on Poverty', which hasn't been successful and hasn't been effective. Rather, these policies have destroyed these vital things in a vibrant community and business sector that was once in place back in the early post WW II era.

You are equating those instances of mayhem with the race based and race baiter instigated riots of recent months? Yeah, that's rich. They have no similarities other than the death and destruction.

I dunno, but based on your comments, I think it's you and others of these opinions who may not have their 'heads right' about it.

The reality is, you have no clue what you're talking about. "Race baiter instigated riots"? WTF dude? Stop watching Fox. It is making you stupid and racist. You don't appear to have any clue what the riots were about at all. Have you not watched or read any coverage of them whatsoever from any serious news outlet? Can't you tell how badly that would distort your picture of things to get all your information about black people from a right wing racist "news" outlet? And, you don't seem to have any concept of history at all either. There were tons of riots in the 60s. Far more than any decade since.

 

[eohrnberger]

The reality is, you have no clue what you're talking about. "Race baiter instigated riots"? WTF dude? Stop watching Fox. It is making you stupid and racist. You don't appear to have any clue what the riots were about at all. Have you not watched or read any coverage of them whatsoever from any serious news outlet? Can't you tell how badly that would distort your picture of things to get all your information about black people from a right wing racist "news" outlet? And, you don't seem to have any concept of history at all either. There were tons of riots in the 60s. Far more than any decade since.

Sharpton is little more than a race baiter, turning unfortunate circumstances to his financial benefit. Has been since Tawana Brawley rape allegations and his previous life in the drug trade and becoming a CI for LEO.

I see. So you believe that the riots, destruction, arson, looting and assaults are all excusable, regardless if they are against the law or not, regardless if it damages their potential future or not.

So whom, exactly here, doesn't know WTF they are talking about?

 

[disneydude]

Trump is the best candidate that the Republicans have. If they were smart they would embrace him. He is their best shot at beating Hillary. The problem is, there is so much in fighting that they will fail to see this.

 

[tuhaybey]

I see. So you believe that the riots, destruction, arson, looting and assaults are all excusable, regardless if they are against the law or not, regardless if it damages their potential future or not.

No, I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said that they are caused by poverty, inequality, disempowerment, etc. I'm the one advocating for fixing those problems instead of just sitting around bickering idiotically about what race we should blame. Who cares who we blame? Why does that matter? Why not actually try to fix it?

 

[eohrnberger]

No, I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said that they are caused by poverty, inequality, disempowerment, etc. I'm the one advocating for fixing those problems instead of just sitting around bickering idiotically about what race we should blame. Who cares who we blame? Why does that matter? Why not actually try to fix it?

The fix it pretty easy, really.

• Avoid teen pregnancy
• Continue you education
• Work hard at your education and any jobs that you hold
• Stay clear of drugs and gangs
• Obey the law and avoid legal entanglements

Just need to also avoid government programs that encourage, and even demand, continued dependance, a that path will hold no future worth having as we have seen.

 

[tuhaybey]

The fix it pretty easy, really.

• Avoid teen pregnancy
• Continue you education
• Work hard at your education and any jobs that you hold
• Stay clear of drugs and gangs
• Obey the law and avoid legal entanglements

Just need to also avoid government programs that encourage, and even demand, continued dependance, a that path will hold no future worth having as we have seen.

Can you give an example of a specific policy?

 

[reinoe]

Reading over this post of yours, I see a lot of claims of what Republicans / Conservatives say, which I have to say, I'm not hearing or reading about. What it sounds like is a bunch of talking points issued from some far leftist source without any substance with a smattering of some minimal conclusions.

For instance, no one I've heard is talking about 100% secure border, but a border that isn't a sieve. There are even Republicans / Conservatives talking about :shock: a pathway to becoming legal for the presently long term illegal aliens who are without criminal proceedings against them pending. As often as the Dems have pulled the Lucy trick, and pulled the football out from under Charlie Brown, how often the Dems didn't follow through with their side of the deal, it's little wonder that Republicans / Conservatives aren't willing to be fooled yet again.

Of all the shouts of 'racism', 'racist' and bigot, they are far more often hurled from the left at the right more often than not without substance, and not the other way around.

You keep throwing around the term white nationalists as if it were some sort of code or substitute for the KKK or white supremacists and apply that Republicans / Conservatives, when those two groups are distinctly different with little overlap, painting with an incorrect and overly broad brush.

White supremacy and GOP politics go together like white on rice. To claim there's little overlap is to white wash the dog-whistle tactics that the GOP has employed for decades.

 

[eohrnberger]

White supremacy and GOP politics go together like white on rice. To claim there's little overlap is to white wash the dog-whistle tactics that the GOP has employed for decades.

MMmmkaaaay.

 

[gdgyva]

Trump is the best candidate that the Republicans have. If they were smart they would embrace him. He is their best shot at beating Hillary. The problem is, there is so much in fighting that they will fail to see this.

lol

and Jill Stein is the democrats best candidate

see how that works.....

 

[disneydude]

lol

and Jill Stein is the democrats best candidate

see how that works.....

Where does Jill Stein stand in the polls? Where does Donald Trump? DOH!