StrangeSox

I still don't understand why anyone would care where he's at.

nvm no need to derail

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 4, 2016 -> 03:03 PM) Ryan isn't a traditional tea party type. He's actually a policy wonk and takes leadership very seriously. The opposite of Trump. That assumption sort of falls apart when you look at the policies and budgets he's proposed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2016 -> 12:16 PM) I can't say I know the law on this at all. The Washington Free Beacon appears to be the source on this, and they say: Per OpenSecrets, Clinton has self-funded her campaign with $468,037, so she's still net-negative. It appears that her and Trump are the only candidates to contribute self-financing so far (though Trump obviously at a much higher level). They also say this, which seems to contradict itself: Donald Trump didn't record payments to himself, but he did have "reimbursements"? What's the difference?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 04:06 PM) If this did anything, it helped Trump. I'm not sure who the target audience for that speech was supposed to be.

I didn't misinterpret your posts as defending David Duke or his ideology. I'm pointing out that taking a cheap shot at Hillary for embracing "a former KKK member" has the effect of distracting from Donald Trump's base of support among white supremacists. Even if that wasn't your intention, that's what that does, and that's clearly the intention of the people distributing the image macro in the snopes article you linked; "Donald Trump, the guy who has enjoyed the support of white supremacists since he kicked off his campaign with his "Mexico is importing rapists and murderers" speech, isn't racist, Hillary Clinton is the real racist!." Which is again not necessarily what you were intending to do, but that's the message those sorts of false equivalencies convey. It's used as a shield from criticism. The same sort of excuse-making comes up all the time whenever conservatives or conservative ideology is being accused of racism in some form or another; Republicans freed the slaves! Democrats ran Jim Crow! Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act! Robert Byrd was in the KKK! All true, but all irrelevant to current ideological alignments and often lacking historical context and developments since then. If the discussion shifts to "Hillary Clinton's relationship with Robert Byrd," it's no longer about David Duke supporting Trump's campaign in 2016.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:47 PM) NSS, I usually agree with your political posts, but the Byrd vs. Duke thing is not silly. It's an intellectually dishonest effort by Trump supporters to paint Clinton and Trump in the same light re: the KKK. Without opining on Byrd, there's a pretty clear difference between affiliating ones' self with Byrd - who spent years apologizing for his prior involvement with the KKK and Duke, who is still a white supremacist. It's also relevant because Trump has said a lot of xenophobic and misogynstic things on the campaign trail. The point here is that people actually believe the "both sides" meme in this instance, even when they are clearly distinguishable. QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) Also, buehrle is getting the response he does, because Republicans have continuously comforted themselves with "Robert Byrd was in the KKK and he was a democrate, who are the real racists!??!" and "The south during the jim crow era were Democrats!" without any critical thinking about those items. It's a part of the longstanding tradition of only understanding racism in America as a rhetorical device. Always liked TNC's framing of this issue: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...ce-card/256072/ I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with. The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic. This is a very old way of you thinking. It's what you get out of watching Buckley's bumbling response to Baldwin--he neither regards Baldwin with any seriousness, nor the issue with any real concern. It's a game to him. He is effectively a homer for team red. Nothing else matters. That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today. To abandon that tradition, I suspect, would be cause for an existential crisis.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Nothing I said was meant to downplay Duke. I was using Duke as the bench mark for being a piece of s*** and as I said tried lumping Byrd in with him and then admitted I was wrong about Byrd. That doesnt change anything about Duke though. I never said or implied that Duke wasnt so bad because of Byrd did I? You admitted that it was just an attempted shot at Hillary. It doesn't change anything about Duke, but it does attempt to change the discussion about the role white supremacist support for Trump is playing by making a false equivalency.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:32 PM) Regardless of this silly Byrd vs Duke thing, I agree with the this. And that comes from someone who despises Trump. It's not like it's an iron-clad argument or anything, but Trump has shown that he's masterful at messaging and playing the media.

Well, like I said, next time read your own link. David Duke is an active white supremacist, holocaust denier and Trump supporter. Robert Byrd was in the KKK 70 years ago, repudiated that past, and was an advocate for civil rights for decades afterwards. Both things are clearly stated. Dragging out Byrd's corpse as an attempted "gotcha!" on Clinton is in effect downplaying what David Duke stands for and what the white supremacist support for Donald Trump indicates. It doesn't mean that you're trying to defend those peoples' actual views, but you're attempting to deflect criticism away from those points of view and the people who support them. Byrd's membership in the KKK in the 1940's gets brought up frequently as a shield from criticism for modern-day racist policies and ideologies.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:15 PM) Im honestly not trying to get into a snarky debate about this. If you want to paint me as something Im not on the internet go ahead. Admittedly I probably should have done more research about Byrd beyond him formerly being in the KKK. I was genuinely curious why it wasnt brought up since it seemed like a reasonable comparison. I'm sorry, but read your own f***ing link next time before JAQing off. It made it very, very clear why that comparison was a dumb one to make. Your words aren't being twisted. You're attempting to downplay how terrible modern and active white supremacists are by "just asking questions" that your own links tell you are dumb questions. The only way to make it a shot at Hillary is to downplay just how awful of a human being David Duke is in the year 2016 by trying to compare him to 2000's-era Robert Byrd.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:10 PM) Yes. The KKK should not be given the media attention they get. They need to go away and what extremely little relevance they have is tied to media headlines. They exist in the backwoods of backwoods states. White nationalism is driving the current GOP front-runner. David Duke is still a voice for this movement, and it's larger than just the KKK.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:08 PM) I think both Duke and Byrd are/were assholes so not sure why you guys are trying to make it sound like Im defending them. My point is that if theyre going to spend hours upon hours blasting Trump for taking too long to condemn a former clansmen , which he has already done in the past, then why isnt it fair game to mention Hillarys relationship wth Byrd? I personally dont think either situation is a big deal but simply asking the question is not defending anyone, which Im sure you know. One of those two people strongly repudiated their past and is dead, the other is still a vocal white supremacist and supports Donald Trump. Your own link explains this very clearly, and by trying to make the comparison you are downplaying David Duke.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 02:59 PM) Well if you find anyone who is downplaying that let me know. first post, this page: QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 02:48 PM) Is David Duke really that different from Robert Byrd? Republican thread: QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 1, 2016 -> 09:44 PM) Does the kkk exist outside of being a media boogeyman? I mean they do, but when is the last time they've been relevant outside of that? There's been a couple incidents here and there I'm sure, but seriously they are the niche of the absolute niche locked in the backwoods of absolutely nowhere and I cannot grasp so much time is wasted on them. GOP Presidential frontrunner acting as if he doesn't know who David Duke is and that he'd have to "look into" white supremacist groups before distancing himself from them.

It was inevitable that "but Byrd!" would make an appearance. Yes, David Duke really is different from post-KKK Robert Byrd as your own link makes pretty clear. The attempted downplaying of the KKK and David Duke is pretty disgusting.

Some people have noticed that Trump has only repeated "I disavow" without specifically naming or criticizing the KKK, David Duke or white supremacist organizations. (link is to MoJo, but also contains link to similar thoughts from National Review)

I'm not sure we can assume that Cruz would take the act of governing very seriously. His actions in the Senate seem to indicate the opposite. edit: though I guess in the end I'd probably agree that Trump would be much more likely to provoke a major international incident or a constitutional crisis than Cruz

Oh the tax return thing was purely just hypocrisy from Romney. His refusal to release anything but the bare minimum in 2012 was a campaign issue for a while. But there were several other policy issues he criticized Trump on: -Trump wants to repeal-and-replace Obamacare, but his plan to do so is "flimsy at best." That's been the GOP plan for six years now. It applies to pretty much everyone in the party. -Trump's foreign policy is bombastic. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." No nuclear deals. Obama isn't bombastic enough and that's why strongman Putin can take Crimea. Bomb major civilian centers to get ISIL. The rest of the GOP's foreign policy is no less bombastic. -Trump calls for torture. So do Rubio and Cruz. And for more Romney hypocrisy: The guy who founded an equity firm and made an enormous fortune off of "restructuring" businesses that often led to bankruptcies and mass layoffs making this criticism is pretty special. And, of course, Romney was also born into substantial wealth and numerous important political and business connections.

I liked this bit from Romney's speech: All of the Republican tax plans are ridiculous. eta: bonus laughs for this Mitt Romney is actually criticizing someone for not releasing tax returns. Many of the criticisms Romney leveled at Trump apply just as well to Rubio and Cruz.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 09:46 PM) I now work for a cruise line in business development. At this time, I am an informed voter and occasional small time campaign donor only. I think the city council campaign I managed in 2014 was probably my last campaign in any professional capacity.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 04:54 PM) That story is a month old. And? What new information has come out since February 1st indicating that Clinton is now a target of a criminal investigation?

I am shocked.

The rise of American authoritarianism

QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 04:37 PM) So you are denying the FBI is currently examining this issue and even as we speak wanting to speak with some more Clinton aides? The FBI is not specifically investigating Clinton, and their ongoing investigation is not criminal.

I'd just like to point out again that the idea that Clinton is under any sort of criminal investigation at all was a complete fabrication by the NYT.