Friday, August 26, 2016

Hillary calls tens of millions of Americans "Racists who associate with the KKK"

So there is a simple distinction to point out here. Not all criticisms are created equal. There is a significant difference between calling Hillary Clinton corrupt for actions she has taken in her career that have garnered legal scrutiny... and calling Trump a racists for holding policy positions that are mainstream in the Republican Party.

Nobody (that I know of) is actually voting for Hillary Clinton "because" she ran a home brewed server, because she was negligent with classified documents, because she accepted foreign donations, or because she may have sold her time and clout for cold hard cash. Because she tried to hide 10,000 of emails. Because she lied to the American public, lied under oath to congress, or apparently lied to the FBI.  Attacking her for those things is not an attack on tens of millions who otherwise might want to vote for her.

Openly promoting hatred and division

However, attacking positions such as border security, extra vetting of Middle Eastern refugees, and actually deporting illegal aliens is not an attack on Donald Trump, it's an attack on a very large portion of mainstream Republicans, both those in office and those who are simply voters. So when you associate these views with racism and the KKK, you are not limiting your accusations to Donald Trump. You are literally accusing a large Portions of Republican in office, as well as Republican voters of being racists who associate with the KKK. You are attacking Ted Cruz and his supporters. You are attacking Mitt Romney (who first introduced the idea of a border fence) and his supporters.

Moreover, what Hillary Clinton is telling her supporters and others she wishes to gain support from, is that it's okay to hold these harsh beliefs about those who disagree with you on these issues. It's okay to simply write them all off as racists who associate with the KKK. Certainly we do not want any calm reasonable discussions on these policies that are backed by tens of millions of Americans. Better to shut it all off with a blanket declaration of racism.

Why did Hillary decide to go there? Because Donald Trump had the audacity to reach out to the African American community. No matter how clumsy these attempts may be perceived, at least he is reaching out.

They say actions speak louder than words. The actions of Donald Trump reaching out to a demographic that is anything but supportive of him, is in harsh contrast to the actions of Hillary Clinton deciding to once again play the politics of spurring hatred and division.  


Myballs said...

Change the subject 101.

While still hiding from any meaningful questions.

But at least we know she can open a jar of pickles.

Roger Amick said...

"Hillary Clinton is a bigot". Donald J Trump. By implication, he says that all who support her are racists.

When we have a family get together here in Southern California, I am the only exclusively white person there. You are calling me a racist.

You are better than that.

C.H. Truth said...

No Roger...

I am saying that Hillary Clinton just called me a racist for supporting border control and enhanced vetting of Middle Eastern refugees. She implied that I am in bed with the KKK and David Duke for holding a legitimate political position that she disagrees with.

Now the fact that you instinctively believe that all Gun Owners are half witted cowboys who hear dog whistle calls and are prone to becoming assassins or the fact that you can lump me in with David Duke... well that begs the question.

Being a "bigot" has nothing to do with race, just like being tolerant has nothing to do with which views you hold.

Tolerance would mean that you can accept those who disagree with you, treat them with respect, and not lump them all together and call them names. Being a "bigot" is when you blanket those who disagree with you as all having the same traits. It becomes worse when everyone who disagrees with has some sort of "ism" attached to them.

So are you a bigot Roger?

You have to ask yourself how you treat those who disagree with you? Do you lump everyone in with some negative trait you deem they must have? That's intolerance and bigotry (by definition).

So if the shoe fits... then you have to wear it.

If you don't believe it does, and you see yourself as someone who is respectful of those you disagree with... then you would condemn the sort of advertising Clinton is doing right now that attempts to lump me in with David Duke because I happen to hold some conservative views about immigration and refugees.

By defending this advertising, Roger... you are calling me a racist. Period.

Roger Amick said...

Off the direct topic, but by implication as a result of the political battle of words over the last few days, the RCP polling average, is back at 6.0. If you take out the Los Angeles Times daily poll, that average is 7.0.

So the Clinton campaign has been more successful in getting more support among the educated, female suburban voters, and the ethnic groups across the board.

The ECV reports show that the road to success for Donald J Trump is becoming increasingly difficult.

Myballs said...

It's worth pointing out that while the Clintons were members of an all white club, Trump was fighting to open such a club to minorities.

You'll not see that on the TV networks other than fnc.

C.H. Truth said...

Well Roger...

In a fantasy world where Democrats can remove Jill Stein and Gary Johnson's name off the ballot and make them choose between Trump and Clinton... those poll numbers would matter.

But in the real world, where Stein and Johnson "will" actually be choices on the ballot, those polls show a different story... and you will find only "one" poll that has even reached seven points now for almost three weeks.

This is a three-four point race right now.

But according to you, I am a racist bigot who doesn't understand Math. So there you have it.

Roger Amick said...

Now the fact that you instinctively believe that all Gun Owners are half witted cowboys who hear dog whistle calls and are prone to becoming assassins or the fact that you can lump me in with David Duke... well that begs the question.

Being a "bigot" has nothing to do with race, just like being tolerant has nothing to do with which views you hold.

The assumptions in that are simply ridiculous. Not all gun owners are not half-whitted cowboys. I have been a gun owner for my lifetime, until I got married and my lovely wife didn't want a gun in the house.

Your projection is ridiculous.

It is unfortunate that Donald J Trump has associated himself with the alt right movement, represented by his endorsement of the Breitbart News point of view. You can find dozens of highly racist and anti-semantic headlines. It is deeply flawed and divisive. Trump has followed a divisive strategy from the first day he ran for the Republican nomination. It isn't going to work in the general election.

Commonsense said...

To put it another way, the communist party USA has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

Does that make Hillary Clinton a communist? Roger does that make you a communist?

Roger Amick said...

I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate..

Your continuing support of the ever changing stands on every issue Republican candidate calls that into question.

Roger Amick said...

By the way, the four way RCP is 4.5. Not 3.

C.H. Truth said...

The assumptions in that are simply ridiculous. Not all gun owners are not half-whitted cowboys. I have been a gun owner for my lifetime, until I got married and my lovely wife didn't want a gun in the house.

Then why did you assume that Donald Trump's statement about gun owners doing something about Clinton naming Supreme Court Justices... was a dog whistle shout out to gun owners to assassinate Clinton?

When you use (or agree with those who use) phrases like dog whistle, you are blatantly suggesting that it's a subconscious appeal to people's inner self. So if that was a dog whistle appeal, you must believe that on a subconscious level gun owners are capable of shooting someone because Trump (in a round about way suggested it).

The problem Roger... is unless you admit that you believe in dog whistles and subconscious desires of gun owners to go out and shoot people, the argument that Trump was calling for an assassination attempt has no legs. It has no tangible open reasoning behind it. But you made the claim anyways, meaning you were dishonest then, or dishonest today.

Same thing with associating Briebart with racism. It's a blanket statement that uses bigotry about those who read conservative news outlets as racists.

Again, I read Briebart, Roger... for the second time today you are flat out calling me a racist.

C.H. Truth said...

By the way, the four way RCP is 4.5. Not 3.

If you look at my sidebar spreadsheet (using both two way and four way polling when available) - Both daily tracking polls show Trump ahead. (UPI/Voter had Clinton ahead by six a week ago so it's hardly a biased poll).

Of the next 12 polls, 10 of them show the race at five or under and eight of them show it at four or under.

If I only look at the most recent polls (past two weeks like RCP) - then the average sits between 3-4 polls.

Again, Roger. I may be a hillbilly racist confederate flag bearing bigot in your mind... but I don't have to rely on other publications to do my statistics or thinking for me.

KD, HB how is your "booming Economy"? said...

Hillary has to attempt to change the subject, will all the money laundering and emails she "forgot" about , after telling us all she released them ALL.

OH HB,,,, you are so ill informed on every single subject you open your mouth about, example, sure, you called this Economy a "Booming Economy" we all laughed @ U,,,, latest report GDP was projected by O'Hillary to come in at 2.3 % , fact they missed that mark, Unexpectedly it came in at a shockingly low 1.1%.

The unforced Error of Hillary calling all Voters that do not support her "Racist" is funny, not as funny as you HB, but close.

Myballs said...

There is a video out with a kkk grand dragon, some guy named will quigg endorsing Hilliary. It is from March .


caliphate4vr said...

Grand Dragon, Will Quigg, has endorsed Hillary and her campaign has taken in $20k from Klansmen

Roger Amick said...

Here is a CHallenge.

Please list all the policies that Donald J Trump has reversed since he announced his intention to run for President.

Myballs said...

List below........

Roger Amick said...

Clinton’s lead over Trump dropped this week in Reuters/Ipsos polling.

It will be credible now.

Bet on it.

Roger Amick said...


1. Build a wall, deport all undocumented immigrants.

At the core of Donald Trump's campaign is a promise to build a wall across the United States' southern border and deport the country's 11 million undocumented immigrants with the help of a "deportation force."

2. Deport all undocumented immigrants but bring the 'good' ones back legally. Dreamers can maybe stay.

In a CNN interview in July, Trump said, "I want to move them out, and we're going to move them back in and let them be legal, but they have to be in here legally."

Trump wavered on what to do with the Dreamers - young undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country by their parents as children and are now afforded limited protection from deportation but no path to citizenship. When asked if Dreamers would have to go back, he said, "It depends."

3. Dreamers cannot stay.

In August, that ambiguity was gone: "They have to go," he said on "Meet the Press."

4. Trump might be flexible on actually deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants.

BuzzFeed reports that in off-the-record talks with The New York Times, Trump admitted this was just bluster and a starting point for negotiations, saying he might not deport the undocumented immigrants as he's promised. Trump has refused calls to release the transcript, despite furious requests from his rival candidates.

5. Deport undocumented immigrants, but don't call it "mass deportations."

"President Obama has mass deported vast numbers of people -- the most ever, and it's never reported. I think people are going to find that I have not only the best policies, but I will have the biggest heart of anybody," Trump told Bloomberg News when pressed about his immigration policies.

When asked more about how he'd characterize the deportations at the center of his immigration policy, Trump said he "would not call it mass deportations."

6. A deportation force is "TBD."

Trump's newly hired campaign manager dodged questions on the deportation force in August before saying that Trump's much-talked about deportation force from the primary was "to be determined."

7. "I'm gonna do the same" as past presidents.

Trump championed President Obama's immigration strategy — deporting criminals first — in an interview with Fox News on Monday, August 22 when asked about how he'd deport 11 million illegal immigrants. He dodged questions of how he'd handle those who aren't criminals.

8. I'm open to "softening."

The next day, Trump told attendees of a town hall hosted by Fox News in Texas that he was open to "softening" laws to help immigrants already living in the United States peacefully. However, he followed that by saying that those who had overstayed visas — one of the key ways undocumented immigrants get into the U.S. — had to leave. "You have to get them out. You have to get them out," Trump said.

9. "There's not amnesty" but "we work with them."

In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that aired Wednesday, August 24, Trump articulated a plan that sounded an awful lot like the kind of path to legalization that immigration reform advocates like Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio had previously articulated — the very people Trump excoriated for weak immigration plans while he campaigned on a promise of mass deportations.

"No citizenship. Let me go a step further — they'll pay back-taxes, they have to pay taxes, there's no amnesty, as such, there's no amnesty, but we work with them," Trump said.

Current position: As Trump has yet to disavow his past policies, we have to assume he still plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, though it seems that the candidate would like people to think he's open to legalizing some of the immigrants living here peaceful.

Roger Amick said...


1. No Muslims should be allowed to enter the United States —as immigrants or visitors.

Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" in a statement about "preventing Muslim immigration" in December.

2. Ban Muslims from entering but make an exception for friends and Muslims serving in the US military.

He later amended his stance in an interview with Fox News, saying the 5,000 Muslims serving the United States military would be exempt from the ban and allowed to return home from overseas deployments. He also suggested that current Muslim residents — like his "many Muslim friends" — would be exempt, too, and able to come and go freely.

3. The Muslim ban was just an suggestion.

"We have a serious problem, and it's a temporary ban - it hasn't been called for yet, nobody's done it, this is just a suggestion until we find out what's going on," Trump said on in mid-May, softening for the first time in months on the ban.

4. Ban Muslims as a matter of policy, as well as people from countries with a history of terrorism.

In a national security address after the terror attack in Orlando, Trump said that if he's elected he would "suspend immigration from areas of the world where there's a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."

5. Ban people from countries with a history of terrorism.

When a reporter asked Trump how he'd feel about a Muslim Scot entering the U.S. while on a trip to visit his golf courses in Scotland, Trump said it "wouldn't bother me." He then went on to emphasize that he did not want "people coming in from the terror countries." When asked, Trump would not name one such country.

6. Ban Muslims from countries with a history of terrorism, and potentially also other Muslims.

That same day, when pressed about how this statement in Scotland jived with Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the country, spokesman Hope Hicks said that the ban would just apply to Muslims from countries with a history of terrorism. She would not, however, confirm that Muslims residing in peaceful countries would be exempt. NBC News has asked for further clarification.

7. The Muslim ban was never about Muslims.

The next week, one spokesperson wrongly said the initial ban was not about Muslims.

"I know the news media has been reporting that the initial ban was against all Muslims, and that simply was not the case. It's simply for Muslim immigration, and Mr. Trump is adding specifics to clarify what his position is," Katrina Pierson told CNN, though advisers at the time said it was indeed about religion exclusively.

8. Nothing has changed, nothing to see here.

"This is not accurate," spokesperson Hope Hicks said when asked if the policies were changing and removing the word "Muslim." "There has been no change from the exchanges over the weekend."

Roger Amick said...

9. The ban is negotiable.

Campaign manager Paul Manafort in late May said the Muslim ban was negotiable, and how Trump initially articulated it was not what it would turn out in the end. Manafort said the policy is currently that "where there is terrorist activity — Syria or Iraq — we will temporarily suspend immigration until we can establish a vetting system in which we can identify who people are who are coming in."

The government already has a rigorous, nine-step vetting process in place for refugees. Trump has previously included all Syrian refugees, including children and non-Muslims, in the ban.

10. The ban would call for "extreme vetting."

Mid July, Trump told "60 Minutes" that people from suspicious "territories" would receive "a thing called 'extreme vetting.'" He did not describe how "extreme vetting" would differ from the current vetting process.

"Call it whatever you want," Trump told CBS when asked if he was changing his previously released policy.

11. The ban hasn't changed, I just don't like saying the word "Muslim."

On Fox News in late July, Trump told Sean Hannity his position hadn't changed from his initial ban on Muslims entering the country.

"I think my position's gotten bigger, I'm talking about territories now. People don't want me to say Muslim—I guess I'd prefer not saying it, frankly, myself. So we're talking about territories."

12. There's a ban, plus "extreme vetting" that includes an ideological test.

"The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today," Trump said in a speech in mid-August that reiterated his call for "extreme vetting" and reiterated that he'd temporarily ban immigration from some countries that he declined to identify.

He then proposed an ideological test for immigration.

"In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles ― or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law," he said.

Current position: Ban all Muslims, plus people from countries with a history of terrorism and people who have hostile attitudes towards America. But don't say "Muslim."

C.H. Truth said...

Clinton’s lead over Trump dropped this week in Reuters/Ipsos polling.

- Her lead always drops right before Ipsos releases the weekly numbers.
- In a couple of days Reuters will report that it is back up into double digits.
- Then next Thursday it will back to a close race again.

Like clockwork

C.H. Truth said...

Unless of course Reuters decides to change the wording and then go back and readjust all of the polling numbers to fit their new model...


Roger Amick said...

We are going to differ on the polls. You see a trend in Trump's favor.

I look at the same data and come to a different conclusion. I spent years analyzing data. I don't have a formal education, that does not mean I can't come to a different conclusion than you do on the same data.

I'm pleasantly surprised that you let my list of changes by the Donald.

caliphate4vr said...

Hasn't Reuters recently started disallowing uncommitteds from their poll?

wphamilton said...

An ad which invokes racial hatred, and stereotypical imagery of extremists associated with race, isn't that in and of itself an appeal to racism? Just like the infamous Willie Horton ad, with races reversed.

It seems to me that the race-baiting ad is more offensive than just calling the platform racist.

C.H. Truth said...

I look at the same data and come to a different conclusion

Of course we do.

However, I get 98% plus of all statewide races correct. Most misses involving recounts.

You analyze and come up with Kerry in a landslide.

Roger Amick said...

That was 12 years ago. It was just an impulse. Not based on the numbers.

It's like you today. The numbers are all showing that unless there is a dramatic event, Hillary Clinton will be elected by a significant amount. The popular vote won't be as bad as Goldwater, but the ECV will not be close.

Trump will leave behind, a deeply divided Republican party. On top of that, the changing demographics are, yes, going to keep the White House and probably the Senate this time. And if Clinton is successful in destroying the terrorists, and the economy in good shape, even the house will change too. Yes, this is just speculation, but the odds are in my favor.

The 2020 census is a wild card. But if the Republican party loses control in a lot of state legislatures, the Gerrymandering of 2010 will be reversed.

All that will be caused by Donald J Trump llc.

Myballs said...

So odds are in your favor that Hillary will be elected, destroy all the terrorists, and fix Obama's crappy economy (by continuing his absurd policies that created his crappy economy).

That's the stupidest thing I've read all day.

And the bug good divide you dream if is in your head. The divide is Washington party establishment vs tens of millions of voters. Just ask Boehner, Cantor and Luger.

KD, GDP unexpectedly lower said...

Hillary is gaining weight, it is really effecting her health and her ability to do simple tasks , like walking up a little set of stairs or when the Secret Service now has to put a stool out so she can get into her vehicle.

Trump's message to the black and other minorities is working, Hillary's YUGE lead is gone.

She really step on her dick by calling all voters Racists. WE are all racist, IF we don't vote for her,,,, didn't Madiline NotsoBright tell ALL women that have a brain and don't vote for Hillbilly are doomed to HELL.

C.H. Truth said...

Wow Roger...

This doesn't sound much like any observational analysis of tangible statistical data to me...

It sounds like an article I might see written in full of rhetoric, assumptions, and unproven theories. With zero statistical analysis of previous election demographics, changes in voting registration, or anything of substance that's required when doing "real" analysis.

More to the point, when you already seeing a two term Presidency where Clinton "destroys terrorists" and wins back both the Senate and the House before 2020... all based on beliefs such as the idea that there were two polls released yesterday showing Trump winning, but that neither is valid and would only be considered by biased cherry pickers... and that 70% of the polling out there is biased in Trump's favor.

So I guess it's something to watch for:

Kerry in a landslide
Democrats win the House
Hillary destroys terrorism

I'd say the latter two are far more impulsive then the first. But we shall hold you accountable for all three!

Roger Amick said...

The Democrats will win the house by 2022. Maybe 2000. Not on numbers, it's to far out to project by polls that don't exist. But by watching the GOP destroying itself because of Trump.

rrb said...

Roger Amick said...
The Democrats will win the house by 2022.



caliphate4vr said...

LOL and according to the sage of mahogany ridge the donks would hold the house for longer than Moses wandered in the desert after 2008

C.H. Truth said...


I suppose Hillary will destroy terrorism "in a landslide" as well?

rrb said...

define 'terrorism.'

so far, hillary's only publicly stated enemy is the republicans.

C.H. Truth said...

so far, hillary's only publicly stated enemy is the republicans.

and pickle jars...

Roger Amick said...

In a Friday press conference following his homophobic remarks about a state lawmaker, Maine Governor Paul LePage (R) called people of color and people of Hispanic origin “the enemy” and implied they should be shot.

“A bad guy is a bad guy. I don’t care what color he is. When you go to war, if you know the enemy, the enemy dresses in red and you dress in blue, you shoot at red,” he said. “You shoot the enemy. You try to identify the enemy. And the enemy right now, the overwhelming majority of people coming in are people of color or people of Hispanic origin.”

rrb should move to Maine. He could shoot Beaners.

Roger Amick said...

Welcome to Trump's America. A Texas couple's dog killed because they had a Clinton sign in their front lawn.

I wish blogger would let us post pictures and video's in the comments.

Sensor away.

C.H. Truth said...

So with all due Respect Roger...

You have nothing to say when Hillary Supporters attack Donald Trump supports openly, and in many rallies they need "police escorts" (as they did in a recent Mpls fundraiser) just to get to their cars...

But some you tube video of people with "no" proof what-so-ever who did what finds out their dog died... and some how that it relevant. For all we know their dog ate some ant killer or cleaner they forgot to put away. Or maybe they didn't put away the bleach in question. There is no police investigation because there is no evidence that anyone actually did anything (other than their claim). Even if they could prove something, there is no evidence that it has anything to do with a sign.

But again... your bias confirmation allows you to believe that everything bad that happens, must be the fault of Trump (even when there is no proof) - but actual People attacking Trump supporters (with signs calling them names, etc) can be ignored due to your cognitive dissonance.

Your a simpleton Roger. Easily manipulated.

KD, "Booming Economy" lol @HB everyday said...

This is so much fun watch HB get a mud hole stomped in his ass by RRB and CHT.

HB, ever, yes every time you get involved with numbers you get confused, error and then double down, normally breathlessly.

Can you tell us why O"Hillary Projected a 2.3% growth rate for GDP and the real number was a small little 1.1 %?

Can you tell us why blacks today are poorer, have less net worth and own less homes and start businesses less then when Obama took office?

Roger Amick said...

I have to disagree. The reason that we are seeing threats of violence from both sides, is that Trump feeds anger. His base is those who believe that DC is broken and it must be stopped at any cost. His "second amendment" appeal is proof that he's inspiring violence.

He's also calling into doubt, that the entire election system is going to rob him of the victory that he believes that he is entitled to be the President.

You are beyond gullible, you are in denial to reality. He is unfit for many reasons to be the President You know his faults, but your hatred for Clinton, faults and all, you justify supporting Trump. Or at least cherry picking the polling to support your belief that he's going to win. Delusional describes you.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

Adults are responsible for their own actions. You don't get to commit assault and claim it's because the victims "incited it" by supporting a political candidate you disagree with.

Little toddlers might use that excuse that the person they attacked made them mad, so it's okay. Well, and I guess some liberals apparently do too.

But not mature adults. We take responsibility for our own emotions and our own actions.

I guess in a nutshell... I see this as conservatives do.

You see it like a typical liberal. Your own failure and poor choices are always someone else's fault.

Roger Amick said...

You actually believe that if a person like Trump, who wrote or said something, that an already deranged person, would feel that Trump wants him to act? Words matter.

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
I have to disagree. The reason that we are seeing threats of violence from both sides, is that Trump feeds anger.

both sides?

i have yet to read a single news report of trump supporters attacking attendees of a hillary campaign event.

link us up.

Commonsense said...

Along these lines consider this little entertainment item.

Ann Coulter told to 'kill yourself' at Comedy Central Rob Lowe roast

“Ann is one of the most repugnant, hateful, hatchet-face bitches alive,” British comedian Jimmy Carr declared, as audience members cheered. “It’s not too late to change, Ann. You could kill yourself!”

That is one of the many hateful and unfunny comments made at Coulter's expense. Now imagine if it was the head of Planned Parenthood; Cecile Richards (A truly evil person to my mind.) instead. The leftest media would be in an uproar.

As Roger proves, as long as liberals think they're sanctimoniously right, anything goes.

KD, said...

He's also calling into doubt, that the entire election system is going to rob him of the victory that he believes that he is entitled to be the President. "

OMG, can you believe HB a full blown all in Alt-leftist,,, channeling AlGore again.

Remember when BLM shut down Bernie Sanders, shouted down Hillary and killed police officers, I do, they are today's Alt-Leftist funded by O'Hillary.