Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[sol]

Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

I see you have been taking lessons from your master.  Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.

Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.

I should expect better from you, Sol; but I've long ago learned that your are not as analytical as the image that you present.  I'm not the one that called you disgusting.

You're the one spewing vile hatred.  I'm the one calling you out for it.

Feel free to address the actual criticism, if you think there can be any defense.   Until then, I stand by my assertion that you are disgusting.  Sexism is not okay.

[Gin1984]

Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

I see you have been taking lessons from your master.  Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.

Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.

I should expect better from you, Sol; but I've long ago learned that your are not as analytical as the image that you present.  I'm not the one that called you disgusting.

You're the one spewing vile hatred.  I'm the one calling you out for it.

Feel free to address the actual criticism, if you think there can be any defense.   Until then, I stand by my assertion that you are disgusting.  Sexism is not okay.

And for the record, thank you Sol, for saying this.  Men like you make me feel safer.  And I'd agree bigots are disgusting be they racist, sexist or what have you.  You want to act a certain why, some decent people will call you on it.

[MoonShadow]

Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

I see you have been taking lessons from your master.  Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.

Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.

I should expect better from you, Sol; but I've long ago learned that your are not as analytical as the image that you present.  I'm not the one that called you disgusting.

You're the one spewing vile hatred.  I'm the one calling you out for it.

Feel free to address the actual criticism, if you think there can be any defense.   Until then, I stand by my assertion that you are disgusting.  Sexism is not okay.

I did nothing of the sort.  This list has become too PC to deal with a contrary opinion, and you went ballistic.  My defense is that you are an ass, and you should know it.  I am no more sexist than you are, I was merely analyzing a political strategy.  You just can't tell the difference.  You obviously hate mixed race men, you are a sexist bigot!

[MoonShadow]

Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

I see you have been taking lessons from your master.  Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.

Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.

I should expect better from you, Sol; but I've long ago learned that your are not as analytical as the image that you present.  I'm not the one that called you disgusting.

You're the one spewing vile hatred.  I'm the one calling you out for it.

Feel free to address the actual criticism, if you think there can be any defense.   Until then, I stand by my assertion that you are disgusting.  Sexism is not okay.

And for the record, thank you Sol, for saying this.  Men like you make me feel safer.  And I'd agree bigots are disgusting be they racist, sexist or what have you.  You want to act a certain why, some decent people will call you on it.

My God, this entire forum is filled with precious, fragile snowflakes.  Sol makes you feel safer, eh?  From his computer desk?  That's one of the most sexist comments from and actual forum member that I have ever seen here. 

[MoonShadow]

I don't know if your sexist, I think it but I don't know. I do know however that you're delusional, thinking Trump has a 100% chance of being next POTUS

As far as I am concerned; you are perfectly within your right to think that I'm sexist, and express that opinion.  I don't think I'm sexist, and neither does my wife, but that is one of those subjective attributes.  Likewise, you are more than welcome to consider myself delusional.  Not only does that not offend me, I (as a rational human being able to separate my feelings about how I believe the world should be from how it actually is) fully expect that many would react in just such a manner.  That is one common reaction to a contrary opinion.  We will find out if I'm delusional in due course.  Another common reaction, in certain people, is cognitive dissonance; which can have the effect of inducing anger in those prone to violence.

[MrStash2000]

Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"

We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.

Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?

I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016

[MoonShadow]

Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"

We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.

Non sequitur.  I'm not a Trump supporter, I never have been, and I have repeatedly said as much.  I am a libertarian; and there is nothing for a lib to get behind with Trump.  Or Hillary, for that matter.  Even the Libertarian Party ticket sucks this cycle, so I have no dog in this fight.  I am only an observer.

[yuka]

Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not  "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"

Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?

We all know he is a sexist anyway

[sol]

I'm not a Trump supporter, I never have been, and I have repeatedly said as much.

You are more than a Trump supporter, you are a Trump promoter.  You've spent months and months telling everyone on the forum how great he is, how smart he is, how savvy he is, what a great leader he is.  You've openly denigrated his competition.  You've parroted his talking points.  You've commended his ideas, his tactics, even his blunders.

Claiming that you're not a supporter is a bit rich, after all that.  Go back and reread your last 500 posts and tell me you don't sound like a supporter.

[MoonShadow]

As I predicted months ago, it's starting to turn.  Earlier than I even anticipated.  Unexpectedly, even the nominal libertarian Gary Johnson spoils Clinton more than Trump.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629671/Forget-NeverTrump-scenario-Donald-leads-Hillary-party-candidates-mix.html

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/07/ppp-florida-poll-donald-trump-45-hillary-clinton-44-oh-and-marco-rubio-is-toast/

Feel free to continue to tell me why I'm delusional.

[MoonShadow]

I'm not a Trump supporter, I never have been, and I have repeatedly said as much.

You are more than a Trump supporter, you are a Trump promoter.  You've spent months and months telling everyone on the forum how great he is, how smart he is, how savvy he is, what a great leader he is.  You've openly denigrated his competition.  You've parroted his talking points.  You've commended his ideas, his tactics, even his blunders.

I've done nothing of the sort.  Wow, Sol, you do have a problem.

Claiming that you're not a supporter is a bit rich, after all that.  Go back and reread your last 500 posts and tell me you don't sound like a supporter.

Your opinion of what I sound like is also irrelevant.  I am not a supporter of Trump, I never have been.  I have made my own interest in his campaign clear.  I am interested in what he has done to politics & how he has done it, and I predicted much of it many months ago. 

[thd7t]

Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"

We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.

Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?

I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016

I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.

[MrStash2000]

Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"

We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.

Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?

I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016

I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.

Simple.

I want moral surperioty over others. I want the ability to tell strangers that they are sexist without ever having to meet them.

[thd7t]

Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"

We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.

Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?

I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016

I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.

Simple.

I want moral surperioty over others. I want the ability to tell strangers that they are sexist without ever having to meet them.

The internet is terrible at tone. I had no way to know that you were being disingenuous. Regarding determining whether others are sexist, I have made a couple of points demonstrating Trump's use of sexism. They are overt and after some (believe it or not) civil discussion, Moonshadow agreed. I don't have to meet Trump to look critically at what he says in public.

[Northwestie]

From Thomas Friedman editorial in NYT -

And we know just how little they are attached to any principles, because today’s Republican Party’s elders have told us so by (with a few notable exceptions) being so willing to throw their support behind a presidential candidate who they know is utterly ignorant of policy, has done no homework, has engaged in racist attacks on a sitting judge, has mocked a disabled reporter, has impugned an entire religious community, and has tossed off ignorant proposals for walls, for letting allies go it alone and go nuclear and for overturning trade treaties, rules of war and nuclear agreements in ways that would be wildly destabilizing if he took office.

Despite that, all top G.O.P. leaders say they will still support Donald Trump — even if he’s dabbled in a “textbook definition” of racism, as House Speaker Paul Ryan described it — because he will sign off on their agenda and can do only limited damage given our checks and balances.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/opinion/dump-the-gop-for-a-grand-new-party.html?_r=0

[golden1]

Discriminating against someone because they are different gender/race/nationality and you truly believe that makes them worse or inferior than you is racism/sexism etc....  It is ignorant, stupid and counterproductive but at least understandable on some level. 

Trump and his ilk aren't racist.  They are worse.  They know that people of different genders/races/nationality are not inferior.  They know that racists believe that they are and have no problem exploiting racists and sexists for their own gain.  That isn't racism/sexism as it currently is defined.  We need a new word for that.

We also need a word for people who sit outside that type of behavior and view it dispassionately.  I honestly can't imagine how it must feel to lack empathy at that level.  I guess it must not feel like much of anything, but it is actually psychically painful for me to know that people out there are salivating at the misery of others. 

[forummm]

Interestingly, some GOPers are now denouncing Trump's racist comments about the judge. But most are still endorsing him. Some admitted that the comments are racist. Some wouldn't use that word and just said they disagreed with them.

Even more interesting is that Trump has told his surrogates to say that it's the people questioning whether his comments were racist that are the ones getting all racial and playing the race card. Oh, I see. It's OK if I steal your wallet. But if you point out that I stole your wallet, then you are the thief. Genius.

[nereo]

Discriminating against someone because they are different gender/race/nationality and you truly believe that makes them worse or inferior than you is racism/sexism etc....  It is ignorant, stupid and counterproductive but at least understandable on some level. 

Trump and his ilk aren't racist.  They are worse.  They know that people of different genders/races/nationality are not inferior.  They know that racists believe that they are and have no problem exploiting racists and sexists for their own gain.  That isn't racism/sexism as it currently is defined.  We need a new word for that.

Not sure what a better term might be... racial/gender insecurity?

We also need a word for people who sit outside that type of behavior and view it dispassionately.  I honestly can't imagine how it must feel to lack empathy at that level.  I guess it must not feel like much of anything, but it is actually psychically painful for me to know that people out there are salivating at the misery of others

Enablers. Or appeasement/appeasers.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke

[Glenstache]

Discriminating against someone because they are different gender/race/nationality and you truly believe that makes them worse or inferior than you is racism/sexism etc....  It is ignorant, stupid and counterproductive but at least understandable on some level. 

Trump and his ilk aren't racist.  They are worse.  They know that people of different genders/races/nationality are not inferior.  They know that racists believe that they are and have no problem exploiting racists and sexists for their own gain.  That isn't racism/sexism as it currently is defined.  We need a new word for that.

Not sure what a better term might be... racial/gender insecurity?

We also need a word for people who sit outside that type of behavior and view it dispassionately.  I honestly can't imagine how it must feel to lack empathy at that level.  I guess it must not feel like much of anything, but it is actually psychically painful for me to know that people out there are salivating at the misery of others

Enablers. Or appeasement/appeasers.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke

Sociopath. The word you are looking for is Sociopath.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Who does the definition at the link remind you of?

[Northwestie]

Interestingly, some GOPers are now denouncing Trump's racist comments about the judge. But most are still endorsing him. Some admitted that the comments are racist. Some wouldn't use that word and just said they disagreed with them.

Even more interesting is that Trump has told his surrogates to say that it's the people questioning whether his comments were racist that are the ones getting all racial and playing the race card. Oh, I see. It's OK if I steal your wallet. But if you point out that I stole your wallet, then you are the thief. Genius.

He's a racist, dumb as a stump, but he's our guy.  Lindsey Graham is not one of my favorites but he is calling a spade a spade.

[forummm]

Interestingly, some GOPers are now denouncing Trump's racist comments about the judge. But most are still endorsing him. Some admitted that the comments are racist. Some wouldn't use that word and just said they disagreed with them.

Even more interesting is that Trump has told his surrogates to say that it's the people questioning whether his comments were racist that are the ones getting all racial and playing the race card. Oh, I see. It's OK if I steal your wallet. But if you point out that I stole your wallet, then you are the thief. Genius.

He's a racist, dumb as a stump, but he's our guy.  Lindsey Graham is not one of my favorites but he is calling a spade a spade.

That's probably because Trump criticized his boyfriend's POW experience.

[GuitarStv]

Interestingly, some GOPers are now denouncing Trump's racist comments about the judge. But most are still endorsing him. Some admitted that the comments are racist. Some wouldn't use that word and just said they disagreed with them.

Even more interesting is that Trump has told his surrogates to say that it's the people questioning whether his comments were racist that are the ones getting all racial and playing the race card. Oh, I see. It's OK if I steal your wallet. But if you point out that I stole your wallet, then you are the thief. Genius.

He's a racist, dumb as a stump, but he's our guy.  Lindsey Graham is not one of my favorites but he is calling a spade a spade.

Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade

[Glenstache]

Interestingly, some GOPers are now denouncing Trump's racist comments about the judge. But most are still endorsing him. Some admitted that the comments are racist. Some wouldn't use that word and just said they disagreed with them.

Even more interesting is that Trump has told his surrogates to say that it's the people questioning whether his comments were racist that are the ones getting all racial and playing the race card. Oh, I see. It's OK if I steal your wallet. But if you point out that I stole your wallet, then you are the thief. Genius.

He's a racist, dumb as a stump, but he's our guy.  Lindsey Graham is not one of my favorites but he is calling a spade a spade.

That's probably because Trump criticized his boyfriend's POW experience.

It is possible that Graham is being principled... I hope that's the case. That said, there is not a lot of love to be lost between he and Trump. Remember the whole cell number thing?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-gives-out-lindsey-grahams-cell-phone-number-120414

[MDM]

Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade

Yes - as the first comments in that article note:
"News to me, I never realized this phrase had any racial overtones."
"I'm not convinced that it does, except for a very few. When one thinks about it, most words could carry a secret slur - to someone. To avoid offense, perhaps one should not speak at all."

Claiming "golf" was a racist attack (http://poorrichardsnews.com/new-secret-racist-code-words-from-msnbc-golf/) is another example of "crying wolf" or "jumping the shark" or whatever analogy one prefers. 

Inventing reasons to be offended does a disservice to those who are truly victims of unethical/illegal behavior.

[golden1]

The Daily Show interview with Lindsey Graham from a few months ago was one of the favorite things I have seen in a long time. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPOOXp3S2UI

I think he honestly is just disgusted with his party right now.  He is seeing Jesus.  And it's fantastic.

Sociopath. The word you are looking for is Sociopath.

Sociopath....I won't ever call someone a sociopath on the internet for obvious reasons, but I will say that Drumpf displays a disregard for social norms to an extent that I rarely see in a public figure and have never seen in a politician.    If you are one who sees social norms as unimportant, then you might be more strongly drawn toward him or at least not be repelled by him. 

I think a lot of Drumpf's "persuasion techniques" work well because most people find his behavior very disorienting.  The rules that most people take for granted don't matter to Drumpf at all.  They are just impediments to his desires.  Many other people who want power also feel this way, they just hide it where he flaunts his disregard of the norms in the open.  This is what most people find disorienting and I think why he won the nomination because he was speaking an entirely different moral language than the other candidates.  You could almost call it verbal terrorism.   He has no problem "killing civilians" in order to win the war. 

[GuitarStv]

Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade

Yes - as the first comments in that article note:
"News to me, I never realized this phrase had any racial overtones."
"I'm not convinced that it does, except for a very few. When one thinks about it, most words could carry a secret slur - to someone. To avoid offense, perhaps one should not speak at all."

Claiming "golf" was a racist attack (http://poorrichardsnews.com/new-secret-racist-code-words-from-msnbc-golf/) is another example of "crying wolf" or "jumping the shark" or whatever analogy one prefers. 

Inventing reasons to be offended does a disservice to those who are truly victims of unethical/illegal behavior.

While I generally agree with your sentiments, that doesn't change the fact that using the phrase while calling someone else racist elicited a chuckle from me.  :P

[MDM]

...using the phrase while calling someone else racist elicited a chuckle from me.  :P

Indeed!

[MoonShadow]

Sociopath....I won't ever call someone a sociopath on the internet for obvious reasons, but I will say that Drumpf displays a disregard for social norms to an extent that I rarely see in a public figure and have never seen in a politician.

A sociopath doesn't display a disregard for social norms, typically they are masters of them while at the same time believe themselves "above" such norms.  There is likely no one on the national political stage, particularly anywhere near the position of POTUS, that does not display some degree of sociopathy.  Hillary is certainly a sociopath.  So is Trump.  Sanders is a maybe, but he's certainly not a "definitely not". It might be a great internet insult these days, but sociopaths run the world, for good or for bad.  Dumb sociopaths walk the halls of prisons, smart sociopaths walk the halls of Congress & corporate offices.

[MoonShadow]

Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"

We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.

Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?

I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016

I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.

Simple.

I want moral surperioty over others. I want the ability to tell strangers that they are sexist without ever having to meet them.

The internet is terrible at tone. I had no way to know that you were being disingenuous. Regarding determining whether others are sexist, I have made a couple of points demonstrating Trump's use of sexism. They are overt and after some (believe it or not) civil discussion, Moonshadow agreed. I don't have to meet Trump to look critically at what he says in public.

I'm pretty certain he was referring to myself.

[forummm]

A sociopath doesn't display a disregard for social norms, typically they are masters of them while at the same time believe themselves "above" such norms.

You contradict yourself inside this sentence. Do they master them? Or do they disregard them because they don't believe they apply to them?

[MoonShadow]

We also need a word for people who sit outside that type of behavior and view it dispassionately.  I honestly can't imagine how it must feel to lack empathy at that level.  I guess it must not feel like much of anything, but it is actually psychically painful for me to know that people out there are salivating at the misery of others.

We have one, but it's more of a code.  It's INTP.

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html

As for myself, I don't completely lack empathy, and I don't "salivate at the misery of others".  But most forms of misery that I see does not motivate me, in part, because I can see how it's often self-inflicted in large part; and also I'm not typically affected by 'identity politics', and therefore don't identify with 'groups'.  I find that I can often be misunderstood online (not so much in person), and I'm sure that part of that is due to my low empathy coefficient.

[MoonShadow]

A sociopath doesn't display a disregard for social norms, typically they are masters of them while at the same time believe themselves "above" such norms.

You contradict yourself inside this sentence. Do they master them? Or do they disregard them because they don't believe they apply to them?

It's not a contradiction.  They do both.  They master them in public, to whatever extent they require, but don't feel morally bound to them beyond the public view.

[thd7t]

Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"

We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.

Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?

I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016

I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.

Simple.

I want moral surperioty over others. I want the ability to tell strangers that they are sexist without ever having to meet them.

The internet is terrible at tone. I had no way to know that you were being disingenuous. Regarding determining whether others are sexist, I have made a couple of points demonstrating Trump's use of sexism. They are overt and after some (believe it or not) civil discussion, Moonshadow agreed. I don't have to meet Trump to look critically at what he says in public.

I'm pretty certain he was referring to myself.

He was definitely talking about you, but I made an argument demonstrating that his basic premise was faulty using a public figure. I still don't agree that sexism is a valid campaign strategy, just like I believe that disenfranchising populations is valid. Both have proven effective, but neither is valid.

[golden1]

Odd, I am an INTP/J (depending on the test) but I find Trump revolting.  But I don't put too much faith in Myers Briggs in any case.  I can't analytically or dispassionately view sociopathic behavior entirely, probably because I have a vested interest in the future of a stable society (my kids).   

[MoonShadow]

Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"

We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.

Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?

I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016

I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.

Simple.

I want moral surperioty over others. I want the ability to tell strangers that they are sexist without ever having to meet them.

The internet is terrible at tone. I had no way to know that you were being disingenuous. Regarding determining whether others are sexist, I have made a couple of points demonstrating Trump's use of sexism. They are overt and after some (believe it or not) civil discussion, Moonshadow agreed. I don't have to meet Trump to look critically at what he says in public.

I'm pretty certain he was referring to myself.

He was definitely talking about you, but I made an argument demonstrating that his basic premise was faulty using a public figure. I still don't agree that sexism is a valid campaign strategy, just like I believe that disenfranchising populations is valid. Both have proven effective, but neither is valid.

I'm not married to the word "valid" if that is the hang up.  Nor am I trying to imply that I approve of the method.  It's more like exploiting a glitch in a video game; it's not a fair way to play, but until it gets fixed, it's somewhat entertaining to watch a cheater master his craft.  It's more like Trump hacked the game, and I'm a spectator watching the opposing team unaware that he's playing "God mode", doing whatever the hell he wants & getting away with it.  It's fascinating on a visceral level, mostly because I think the politicos that he is doing it too deserve it, even if he is harming the social structure of the nation as he does so. (Which I do recognize, but mostly I don't care.  I'm not sexist, I just don't give a cr*p)  And I don't think anyone can, or will, stop him.  Also, if it wasn't Trump this time, someone else was bound to break our politically correct campaign system eventually.  This version has been getting a bit long in the tooth.  There hasn't been this much rapid change in how a national campaign is run since Kennedy put his pretty boy face on a black & white television.

[MoonShadow]

Odd, I am an INTP/J (depending on the test) but I find Trump revolting.  But I don't put too much faith in Myers Briggs in any case. I can't analytically or dispassionately view sociopathic behavior entirely, probably because I have a vested interest in the future of a stable society (my kids).

Don't blame your kids for your failure of imagination.

[MoonShadow]

Today on the Tom Woods show, Brion McClanahan was commenting on this article...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935

First he pointed out that Zachary Taylor won that election, and that the Whig party only self-destructed after Taylor died, and he may have been assassinated.  If so, he would be the only sitting president assassinated by poisoning, and the prime suspects would have been his own cabinet.

But then he goes on to make a very good argument that Trump's campaign is less like Taylor's, and more like the campaign of 1896 between William McKinley (R) and William Jennings Bryan (D).  But in that race, it wasn't the Republican nominee that split his own party, it was the Democrat.  Bryan was a hard-left progressive, and conservative Democrats pretty much had their own "Never Bryan" campaign after the "free silver" progressives literally took over the Democratic National Convention & repudiated their incumbent, President Grover Cleveland.  They actually fielded their own third party candidate under the name of the "National Democratic Party", and nominated Senator John Palmer.  Some vocal Democratic Party stalwarts advocated voting for McKinley, in an attempt to kill the takeover of the Democratic Party by the progressives.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Anyway, we all know that the Democratic Party wasn't destroyed, nor were progressives ever purged from the party.  Ever.  In the end, it was the National Democratic Party that ceased to exist.  It disbanded in 1900.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29

Also, Brion pointed out that Trump's bombastic attitude & tendency to insult his opposition is not novel, but a return to Pre-Civil-War politics.  Even insulting the wives of competitors is not new.  Andrew Jackson's wife, Rachel, was divorced before marrying Andrew, and divorce wasn't a well recognized legal procedure just yet.  So more than one political opponent was known to have called her either a "bigomist" or an "adulterer" in public.  Of course, we are talking about Andrew Jackson, the hero of the War of 1812.  He killed both those men, btw.  Personally & publicly.  Trump isn't likely to have his political opposition "erased", and he sure as hell wouldn't do the deed personally, so there's that.  That's progress, right?

[golden1]

Don't blame your kids for your failure of imagination.

Okay, that made me laugh.  You really do come across as a very ridiculous person. 

[NoStacheOhio]

Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade

Should we just change it to "calling a shovel a shovel," so there can't be any misinterpretation?

[GuitarStv]

Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade

Should we just change it to "calling a shovel a shovel," so there can't be any misinterpretation?

Whatever floats your boat . . .

[MoonShadow]

Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade

Should we just change it to "calling a shovel a shovel," so there can't be any misinterpretation?

Whatever floats your boat . . .

Ha! I see what you did there!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

[MoonShadow]

Don't blame your kids for your failure of imagination.

Okay, that made me laugh.  You really do come across as a very ridiculous person.

Excellent!

[nereo]

Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?

[MoonShadow]

Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?

I don't understand what you need explained.  Warren is famous for claiming minority status while attending graduate school, due to a fractional family background being Native American.  Pocahontas was a semi-famous historical figure.  She was a chieftain's daughter who married John Wolfe in 1614 & took the Christian name Rebecca.  Trump is mocking her history, because she's as white as a snowflake.

Is that what you were looking for?

[Northwestie]

Also, Brion pointed out that Trump's bombastic attitude & tendency to insult his opposition is not novel, but a return to Pre-Civil-War politics.  Even insulting the wives of competitors is not new.  Andrew Jackson's wife, Rachel, was divorced before marrying Andrew, and divorce wasn't a well recognized legal procedure just yet.  So more than one political opponent was known to have called her either a "bigomist" or an "adulterer" in public.  Of course, we are talking about Andrew Jackson, the hero of the War of 1812.  He killed both those men, btw.  Personally & publicly.  Trump isn't likely to have his political opposition "erased", and he sure as hell wouldn't do the deed personally, so there's that.  That's progress, right?

Maybe Trump will next suggest slavery to help the GDP.

[MoonShadow]

Also, Brion pointed out that Trump's bombastic attitude & tendency to insult his opposition is not novel, but a return to Pre-Civil-War politics.  Even insulting the wives of competitors is not new.  Andrew Jackson's wife, Rachel, was divorced before marrying Andrew, and divorce wasn't a well recognized legal procedure just yet.  So more than one political opponent was known to have called her either a "bigomist" or an "adulterer" in public.  Of course, we are talking about Andrew Jackson, the hero of the War of 1812.  He killed both those men, btw.  Personally & publicly.  Trump isn't likely to have his political opposition "erased", and he sure as hell wouldn't do the deed personally, so there's that.  That's progress, right?

Maybe Trump will next suggest slavery to help the GDP.

Wouldn't be novel.  Many current politicos have already mentioned re-instituting the draft.  Wouldn't help the GDP all that much, since that measures the flow of money, and slaves don't make great paychecks.

[nereo]

Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?

I don't understand what you need explained.  Warren is famous for claiming minority status while attending graduate school, due to a fractional family background being Native American.  Pocahontas was a semi-famous historical figure.  She was a chieftain's daughter who married John Wolfe in 1614 & took the Christian name Rebecca.  Trump is mocking her history, because she's as white as a snowflake.

Is that what you were looking for?

I still don't quite understand your response.  I know who Pocahontas was. Does Warren actually have a fractional family background of Native American, or not?  You seem to say yes but then say she's 'white as a snowflake' suggesting no...

Is Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?

[Yaeger]

He's calling her a fraud. She's lied about being native American to gain this protected minority status to obtained teaching and research positions at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, even though she's a filthy rich white woman. She's never been able to substantiate her Native American claims. It's ironic in that she exemplifies the very type of person she continues to rail against.

She's been called "Fauxcahontas" for years now, it's not new.

[MoonShadow]

Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?

I don't understand what you need explained.  Warren is famous for claiming minority status while attending graduate school, due to a fractional family background being Native American.  Pocahontas was a semi-famous historical figure.  She was a chieftain's daughter who married John Wolfe in 1614 & took the Christian name Rebecca.  Trump is mocking her history, because she's as white as a snowflake.

Is that what you were looking for?

I still don't quite understand your response.  I know who Pocahontas was. Does Warren actually have a fractional family background of Native American, or not?  You seem to say yes but then say she's 'white as a snowflake' suggesting no...

Honestly, I don't know; but my understanding is that the legal claim to be a minority because of a Native American background ceases at one-eighth, even if it can be proven.

Is Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?

I think that he is mocking her claiming & getting subsidies intended for minorities as a result of a visually undetectable NA contribution to her genome.  I probably have more than she does, and I have never claimed that for monetary gain.  I have had employers claim it for their own reasons, though.   I can (and generally do) pass for a typical white guy with a slight sunburn, and I don't mention to people that I don't know well.  (I have had exactly 2 people guess by looking at me in my lifetime)  If I have any 'white privilege', so does Elizabeth Warren.  If he is mocking her NA heritage, I wouldn't be offended anyway; but I wouldn't count my opinion on this matter either, since I've spent exactly the same amount of time exposed to tribal culture as Elizabeth Warren, which is to say, none.

[Glenstache]

Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?

I don't understand what you need explained.  Warren is famous for claiming minority status while attending graduate school, due to a fractional family background being Native American.  Pocahontas was a semi-famous historical figure.  She was a chieftain's daughter who married John Wolfe in 1614 & took the Christian name Rebecca.  Trump is mocking her history, because she's as white as a snowflake.

Is that what you were looking for?

I still don't quite understand your response.  I know who Pocahontas was. Does Warren actually have a fractional family background of Native American, or not?  You seem to say yes but then say she's 'white as a snowflake' suggesting no...

Honestly, I don't know; but my understanding is that the legal claim to be a minority because of a Native American background ceases at one-eighth, even if it can be proven.

Is Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?

I think that he is mocking her claiming & getting subsidies intended for minorities as a result of a visually undetectable NA contribution to her genome.  I probably have more than she does, and I have never claimed that for monetary gain.  I have had employers claim it for their own reasons, though.   I can (and generally do) pass for a typical white guy with a slight sunburn, and I don't mention to people that I don't know well.  (I have had exactly 2 people guess by looking at me in my lifetime)  If I have any 'white privilege', so does Elizabeth Warren.  If he is mocking her NA heritage, I wouldn't be offended anyway; but I wouldn't count my opinion on this matter either, since I've spent exactly the same amount of time exposed to tribal culture as Elizabeth Warren, which is to say, none.

Trump has found a new thing to spout his mouth off about and garner headlines for another news cycle. In other words, it is nothing. This is his MO and no longer surprising. It makes me sad that it is a new normal.

On specifics: It was a great great grandmother, so something like 1/32 ancestry. This is largely an issue cooked up starting with debates against Scott Brown in her 2012 Senate bid. She is correct to claim that she has ancestry, and the record does not show her attempting to actually use it for benefit. Where organiziations have claimed her as a minority, it appears to have been done without her involvement. I think an important distinction here is that she is recognizing it as a legitimate part of her heritage (it is, even if fractional), and she isn't exactly attempting to claim tribal membership (which is a fraught subject in many places as it is). I know many people who have fractional native american ancestry and consider it a part of their heritage worthy of respect. Similar to Warren they do not disown it, but also are not claiming the full benefits of tribal membership (though some do outreach and activities with tribal groups).

http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/warren.asp