2020 Presidential Election

[rasputin]

Thank you for finally posting the text of The President's tweets. I didn't have a chance to actually examine them until today. I think that if one doesn't take parts of it out of context you'll find that the argument that the tweets are "unambiguously" racist fails. There is only one congresswoman that is from another country. "Who originally came from countries" pretty much eliminates the other three squad members from the discussion however poorly worded/pluralized it may be.

If you're looking for another reason to paint POTUS as a racist, then you'll read right past that and focus solely on "go back". It doesn't say go back home and stop there. "Why donÂ’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done." Yet the media and certain thread participants myopically focus on two words, add their biased opinion, and preempt any defense with "you're racist!"

Allowing discussion of the tweets was a woeful mistake. Some have posted that any defense or dispassionate reading of the tweets are normalizing "blatantly racist rhetoric." That's a terrible tact to take. You've already characterized anyone who attempts to do so as racist. How can this possibly advance any discussion of the election ? How can I feel welcome to post my opinion on the matter if I'm already labeled racist?

I didn't vote for either nominee in the last race and I don't belong to a political party. I don't care to defend every little thing POTUS says, posts or tweets. I do however take issue with mischaracterization of almost every thing that he says or does here and elsewhere. I think I echo the sentiments of other posters and more than likely lurkers who are afraid to participate here that this board has normalized an environment unwelcoming to us.

The fact that Trump mistakenly thought that some of the members of Congress to whom he was referring are natives of other countries does not "eliminate" them from the discussion, unless you are intentionally ignoring that this was about the Squad.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The fact that Trump mistakenly thought that some of the members of Congress to whom he was referring are natives of other countries does not "eliminate" them from the discussion, unless you are intentionally ignoring that this was about the Squad.

More articulate messaging from POTUS would remove some of the guesswork.

[LasVegas]

Now say what you will about Pelosi but she strikes me as a politician, not an ideologue. Which is to say, you can do business with her even if you're on the other side of the aisle. I would guess that Trump feels the same way. But AOC and Omar on the other hand--the public perception, at least, is that they're more extreme. Frank Luntz today tweeted out an internal Dem poll of white swing state voters without a college degree (the same people, some believe, who flipped the election to Trump in the Midwest and who made up 45% of the electorate in 2016). The results:

.

That internal poll is a hot pile of garbage and should be thrown out of all discussions. This url explains my thoughts on it.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d2cdb78e4b0a5833c5d4bce?guccounter=1

“ In this case, readers have no way of knowing who commissioned the poll, who conducted it, how they identified the voters they surveyed, what methodology they used to interview them or what exactly respondents were asked. That makes it basically impossible to evaluate the survey in any meaningful way. “

It’s also ridiculous that they didn’t pool other dem candidates. Yeah, AOC got like 25% but what about warren or Harris or Biden? Where would they poll? This is a historically republican leaning subset of people so maybe Biden only polls at 30%. Does it look bad now?

In short, it’s a crap internal poll that we know nothing about and no conclusions should be drawn from it. At alll.

[Jeffrey]

Some have posted that any defense or dispassionate reading of the tweets are normalizing "blatantly racist rhetoric." That's a terrible tact to take. You've already characterized anyone who attempts to do so as racist. How can this possibly advance any discussion of the election ? How can I feel welcome to post my opinion on the matter if I'm already labeled racist?

I didn't vote for either nominee in the last race and I don't belong to a political party. I don't care to defend every little thing POTUS says, posts or tweets. I do however take issue with mischaracterization of almost every thing that he says or does here and elsewhere. I think I echo the sentiments of other posters and more than likely lurkers who are afraid to participate here that this board has normalized an environment unwelcoming to us.

I've certainly had this concern, on behalf of others, and do not believe "love it or leave it" is the best approach.

https://forums.dukebasketballreport...70#post1174770

In many ways, if not most, the participants in this thread are doing most of the moderating. IMO, we (the participants) are to blame for creating an unwelcoming environment. And, definitely, the lurkers who flame pro-Trump posts and send participants mean PMs.

We can do better and I promise to do my part! Anyone else?

[elvis14]

I've certainly had this concern, on behalf of others, and do not believe "love it or leave it" is the best approach.

https://forums.dukebasketballreport...70#post1174770

In many ways, if not most, the participants in this thread are doing most of the moderating. We (the participants) are to blame for creating an unwelcoming environment.

We can do better and I promise to do my part! Anyone else?

For the most part, I do my part by following the advice of Herm Edwards...don't press send!
I bet I discard 3/4 of the posts I type for this thread. Feels good sometimes to get the words down, though.

[Jeffrey]

For the most part, I do my part by following the advice of Herm Edwards...don't press send!
I bet I discard 3/4 of the posts I type for this thread. Feels good sometimes to get the words down, though.

Thanks, I need to start doing that!

[dudog84]

I've certainly had this concern, on behalf of others, and do not believe "love it or leave it" is the best approach.

https://forums.dukebasketballreport...70#post1174770

In many ways, if not most, the participants in this thread are doing most of the moderating. IMO, we (the participants) are to blame for creating an unwelcoming environment. And, definitely, the lurkers who flame pro-Trump posts and send participants mean PMs.

We can do better and I promise to do my part! Anyone else?

I know you are not accusing me specifically of this, but I have never flamed anyone on this board. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even if I were to think a comment was overboard, I leave that stuff to the mods.

But then I'm not much of a sporker either.

[Jeffrey]

I know you are not accusing me specifically of this, but I have never flamed anyone on this board. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even if I were to think a comment was overboard, I leave that stuff to the mods.

But then I'm not much of a sporker either.

You’re correct, I never thought you had!

My concern was your post could possibly be considered “love it or leave it”. I think everyone should feel very comfortable participating in this thread.

[dudog84]

You’re correct, I never thought you had!

My concern was your post could possibly be considered “love it or leave it”. I think everyone should feel very comfortable participating in this thread.

But isn't that what Trump said? *ducks*

[Wander]

I think everyone should feel very comfortable participating in this thread.

A poster recently stated that they didn't feel they could safely post a "defense" of the President's tweets on this thread. I would just like to honestly ask you if you can understand why hypothetical posts that defend those tweets would make some people not "feel very comfortable"?

I agree we could all do a better job here, including me. I'm also glad DBR is a place where posting defenses of the President's recent tweets or comments regarding sexual assault on the Hollywood Access tape are frowned upon.

(Just speaking for myself: if DBR had been a place where a ton of posters publically defended the President's comments on the Hollywood Access tape, I don't think I'd feel comfortable posting on DBR anymore, and I'm appreciative the mods didn't allow that. I'm guessing I might not be the only one who's appreciative of the mods position on this subject.)

[Troublemaker]

I'm going to excerpt from a speech the Massachusetts of Governor (Henry Gardner) gave in 1855 as an example.

Others' mileage may vary, but I don't find it persuasive that because someone else was racist in a speech when saying "go back," that means Trump was racist in his tweets.

Most crucially, the difference between what Trump wrote and that speech (besides being 140 char tweets, of course) is that Trump is asking people who are ungrateful (or whom he perceives to be ungrateful) to "go back." Now, I have several issues with that line of reasoning, too, but it is different from saying every person of Somalian descent, Puerto Rican descent, etc should "go back" because they are of an inferior race.

It occurs to me at this point that many folks on the left would exclaim, "Inferior race is what Trump wants to say but can't, don't you see!?" but that is why I consider this to be a partisan perception issue. Very few Rs would read into Trump's tweets that he believes these women are racially inferior. They see Trump making an argument about gratitude, not race.

Another crucial point is that what Trump said is basically a variation of a well-worn R argument: "If America is so bad, then why don't you leave?" Again, I have issues with that line of thinking, but (1) it exists and is a familiar and old Republican trope (the kids would call it a "boomer-tier meme"), and (2) if one has followed politics long enough, I'm sure one has seen white Ds be at the receiving end of that question. (Perhaps even some caucasian D on here has been asked that by some R during a twitter spat or something.)


Getting back to the point of the thread, I think the eventual D nominee (unless it's Bernie) will have a Sister Soulja moment with "The Squad" at some point during the general election. Pretty easy prediction because it's a pretty easy way to try to move towards the center after moving left during the primaries.

[Bob Green]

In many ways, if not most, the participants in this thread are doing most of the moderating. IMO, we (the participants) are to blame for creating an unwelcoming environment. And, definitely, the lurkers who flame pro-Trump posts and send participants mean PMs.

We can do better and I promise to do my part! Anyone else?

PMs can be reported if they violate DBR posting guidelines.

[OldPhiKap]

Attachment 9618

And to think -- only 475 more days of this until the election!


"woot"

[mattman91]

And to think -- only 475 more days of this until the election!


"woot"

Probably followed by another 4 years of the same entertainment.

I'm gonna need to buy more popcorn!

[Tripping William]

I'm gonna need to buy more popcorn!

And beer (but that goes without saying).

[OldPhiKap]

Then another likey 4 years of the same entertainment

I'm gonna need to buy more popcorn!

Yeah, and I'm not including the litigation from Election Day until the swearing in.

And beer (but that goes without saying).

"You're gonna need a bigger keg"

[mattman91]

And beer (but that goes without saying).

Obviously

[bundabergdevil]

eta: Trump’s approval rating increases with Republicans after racist tweets

I guess if we're going to pull this thread back to it's original intent, it has to be through posting polls. In addition to the one you linked, another poll on Trump's tweet suggests that 59% believe the sentiment behind it to be un-American and 68% believe it to be offensive.

That seems about right. Trump only has one strategy available to him and that's threading the same needle he did in 2016. It's great for him that his base gets fired up in instances like this but everyone else, including the precious few independents and undecideds, find Trump questioning the American-ness of these congresswomen itself Unamerican. I guess the strategic question here is whether this fires up his minority base more than it does the majority who disapprove of him...I'd personally argue that given the demographic shifts since 2016, Trump is making a tough road even harder. But, then again, anyone who thinks or thought that Trump has any ability to pivot toward the center or moderate is fooling themselves.

[bundabergdevil]

Bernie Sanders says he is a socialist and Donald Trump says he is not a racist.

Yet, on this thread, we can call Trump a racist and we cannot call Sanders a socialist?

Did you get dinged for the socialism discussion upthread? FWIW, I thought all that was fine. Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist, which does differ from pure Socialism in some pretty significant ways. Trump and the Republicans will try to paint whichever Democrat wins as anti-capitalist and socialist and they'll have an easier time doing that with Sanders to be sure. I mean, McCain and Palin did the same thing to Obama with the "government takeover" and "death panel" rhetoric in 2008.

I don't think the socialism label is nearly effective in 2019 as it was in, say, 1989 for two important reasons, both of which are based in demographic trends and polling data:

1. Millennial voters will equal Boomers and the Silent Generation in 2020 and they're not nearly as keyed into the negative connotations of the term. They're fairly open to the arguments for economic socialism and worker ownership, in fact. This makes sense. They entered the workforce around the time of The Great Recession and are expected to be the first generation that does not do as well as their parents. They're saddled with debt and saw the Wall Street "fat cats" not be held accountable for the housing crisis.

2. Pure socialism is both an economic and governance system. The U.S. was engaged in battles against socialist nations decades ago but we're in a post 9/11 world. A big chunk of the voting electorate has only seen wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which are socialist at all. The term just doesn't have the same cache with new voters as those that fought in the battles against socialist nations.

I'm certainly open to hearing arguments as to why Trump leaning hard into painting the Dem as socialist would be a very effective strategy so long it's based in polling data, demographic information, and other data points. That's the point of thread. No? Obviously we've, ahem, strayed from that path with the Trump tweet discussion though...

[cato]

Probably followed by another 4 years of the same entertainment.

I'm gonna need to buy more popcorn!

Just another 4 years? I see you are an optimist.

Or you are such a pessimist you think we only have 4 years left.