Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal shanen's Journal: Yet more false equivalencies: Hillary Clinton is NOT Mitt Romney 46

Journal by shanen

False equivalencies: Hillary Clinton is NOT Mitt Romney

There are certainly some things to dislike about Hillary, but I actually think she was being refreshingly honest with the "basket of deplorables" comment. You sure can't tell from the worthless commentary of the worthless media, but it is important to understand the REAL differences.

Hillary was clear in stating that "deplorable" referred to racists and various other categories of bigots. That is, she was referring to people who hate other people, either for accidents of birth or for various acquired characteristics such as religious preference. She regarded it as deplorable that such people are eagerly supporting Trump, though I regard it as MORE deplorable that Trump welcomes their support. At this point, I am convinced the Donald is NOT faking it, and he really will do ANYTHING to become president, which includes accepting and even soliciting support from people who are deplorable or worse.

In contrast, Mitt's infamous 47% comment was really about HIS personal hatred towards roughly half of the entire population. He regarded those people as lazy bums who were never going to vote for a hard-working vulture capitalist. He was deploring their lack of HIS brand of greed, which is completely different from deploring their hatreds of other people.

I'm not sure where Romney got the exact value of 47%, but I can guess where Hillary got the "half", and even why she had to be fuzzy about it. The value depends on the exact question you ask. The question determines what kind of hatred you are measuring, and when such questions are put to Trump supporters the results range up to 70% picking the hate-filled response. Other questions elicit smaller percentages of "deplorable" responses, but "half" seems downright generous.

The latest poll shows about 40% of the voters supporting Trump, so the estimate of 20% of the voters as "deplorable" haters certainly is a lot of people. However, I think the standard of comparison here should be the percentages of voters who supported bad leaders in the past. Your political views probably don't matter as much as you think. If you deplore President Obama, then you think more than 50% of the voters made a terrible choice TWICE. If you adore Dubya, then you have to admit that more than 50% of the voters preferred Al Gore. (I'd even be curious if you have any rational and nonpartisan basis for attacking Obama, but I think I've seen all the criticisms and attacks by now, and many, perhaps most, of them qualify as deplorable.)

The original Republican Party led by Honest Abe was about constructive change (even though that led to an incredibly destructive war), and the GOP of Teddy and Ike was a party of gentlemen and their ladies. None of this applies to today's so-called Republicans led by Con Man Donald, the man of 3,500 suits, at least four major bankruptcies, and uncountable political bribes (but his tax returns would help count some of them).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yet more false equivalencies: Hillary Clinton is NOT Mitt Romney More

Yet more false equivalencies: Hillary Clinton is NOT Mitt Romney

Comments Filter:
  • I'm pretty sure Drumpf has smart enough accountants to make sure the bribes he pays out aren't obvious in his tax returns. Even if you pay your accountants terrible wages they still want your business back so they'll do the tricks you want.

    Now as for nonpartisan attacks on Obama, one could argue that the slashdot conservatives are - unknowingly - actually making nonpartisan attacks on him. While they hate him for having the wrong consonant after his name - and grab any number of silly attack fronts to r

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      I'm not following on both sides. My point regarding the tax returns is that they would be another starting point, but from what has already come out, I think your high regard for the intelligence of his staff seems misplaced. Maybe it's better to take the other tack? If the tax returns made him look good, then you know he'd release them in a New York minute.

      On the other angle, I'm not sure what you think a "slashdot conservative" is, but my actual point was that the last few elections have been so close tha

      • If the tax returns made him look good, then you know he'd release them in a New York minute.

        I expect that Drumpf's tax returns follow the tax code as his accountant chooses to understand it. Is he unwilling to release them because they would show that his net worth is less than he likes to claim? I suspect that is highly likely. He is known for using the legal system like a baseball bat to intimidate people, so it is fair to expect he has a fair number of lawyers on the ready for his calling - likely including some that are well versed in tax law.

        I'm not sure what you think a "slashdot conservative" is

        Just a term for the overwhelming conservative

        • Income tax returns don't necessarily reflect net worth.

          For instance, Hillary's income in 2015 was ~10.7 million. Her net worth is rumored to be more or less 31 million, according to the internet.

          The other guy, who knows? He could show a net loss on his tax statements and even may be on government assistance for it.

          The democrats main advantage over the republicans right now is that of public decorum, which is reflected by Rupert Murdoch's media empire and its tabloid 'journalism' which gave rise to *that man

          • Unfortunately it is the democrats that are more interested in stifling free speech

            I'd love to see the stats on that.

            but in reality their policies, in practice (voting records), not theory (campaign promises), are hardly distinguishable from the republicans.

            Sadly, [thatsmycongress.com] untrue. [capwiz.com]
          • Drumpf likes to call himself a billionaire. Let's presume for the sake of argument that is a reasonable statement and say his net worth is $2B.

            If that is the case, then it shouldn't be a stretch to expect he might have $10M in bank accounts, making interest. That would be only .5% of his net worth. A quick search on google turned up some CDs that are paying 1.85% interest currently. This would be useless to mere mortals like us but if he had a $10M CD making that, it would be $18,500 interest. That w

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by shanen ( 462549 )

              Hmm... I doubt he could have that much money. Certainly not cash, but we're talking about assets over liabilities. I think if he had a solid $2 billion, then he would be willing to prove it by revealing his tax returns, and if he was serious about running for president in the first place, then he would have been planning along those lines...

              Maybe he was just caught up in his own web of lies? He started out by exaggerating his net worth, but the exaggeration got so YUUGE that now the reality would make him l

              • Hmm... I doubt he could have that much money. Certainly not cash, but we're talking about assets over liabilities.

                With all the real estate he is involved in, I don't think it would be hard to balance that equation out to a number of $1B or more. He gets all kinds of royalties for anything his name is on, too - and who knows how much he makes for his TV and radio appearances.

                And frankly I think I'm being quite generous at that point to suppose he has only $10M in a bank (or across multiple banks) somewhere. By the same equation above I have a net worth that might be a 5 digit number yet I often have $1,000 or more

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by shanen ( 462549 )

                  Not too much to add, but I would add that I'd like to check his shoes first. Make sure they aren't elevators. That's why I didn't include his reported height as a hard number.

                  Actually, upon reviewing your comment I should clarify that I regard the value of his brand as meaningless. It's just a matter of opinion like a stock price. The reference to Enron was deliberate. According to the public opinion of Enron's stock price, I believe it had the 3rd or 4th highest market cap in America at its peak. When some

                  • That's why I didn't include his reported height as a hard number.

                    I don't recall his physician commenting on his height. I'm not a physician myself but I would think a physical would be rather incomplete without measuring the height of the patient...

                    Actually, upon reviewing your comment I should clarify that I regard the value of his brand as meaningless. It's just a matter of opinion like a stock price.

                    Actually with Drumpf the value of his brand is arguably worse than a stock price. As he said himself previously, the value of his brand is partially based on what he feels it to be worth.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by shanen ( 462549 )

                      Actually, my reply to both of your comments is basically unified, in that Trump is a master of manipulation, a true artist of the con. If he wants his doctor to report his height as 6' 3", then he would just manipulate the doctor into letting him keep his elevator shoes on, or perhaps just pick a highly cooperative doctor who will cooperatively accept whatever Trump says about his height and other aspects of his health. Some evidence of option #2 in the rushed "letter to his mother" from his long-time docto

                    • Actually, my reply to both of your comments is basically unified, in that Trump is a master of manipulation, a true artist of the con.

                      I don't dispute that Drumpf is a pathological liar. He seems to have realized some time ago that the presentation often is more important than the facts themselves.

                      Now, the possibility of elevator shoes aside, I did recall the picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton at Drumpf's wedding [timeinc.net]. I don't know how long ago that was, though the caption says it was Drumpf's wedding so it could potentially be 2005 as wikipedia says that is when Drumpf married his current wife [wikipedia.org], otherwise it could possibly be 1993 when he [wikipedia.org]

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by shanen ( 462549 )

                      Now I'm pretty certain the Donald wouldn't have to go that far. Threaten to sue for malpractice? Over his height? No, I can't buy it.

                      My thought was simply that he (or his father) checked out several doctors and picked the cooperative slacker. Then Trump says: "You don't need me to take off my [elevator] shoes. Just put down 6' 3" as my height."

                      "Slack" or "highly relaxed" is certainly the impression given by his doctor in that recent interview. He might well be extremely competent as a physician, but he also

                    • Drumpf is so quick to threaten to sue people that he has nearly become thematically associated with the act of threatening to sue people. He is known for using the threat of a lawsuit as a tool to get people to do what he wants as he knows that the cost of legal representation in a suit is often greater than the cost of whatever he wants them to do (or stop doing).

                      In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if this was part of what led him on this power trip. If he can use the courts as a baseball bat, why not t

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by shanen ( 462549 )

                      Now you're talking about the RoI approach, and I can only agree (with sadness). It all ties back to my sig, but today's flavor is the new topic about Microsoft's latest "Services Agreement and Privacy Statement"... Nothing much to add here?

            • But even Drumpf isn't that stupid, is he?

              Well for now, he's smarter than Madoff and Martha Stewart. And the amount and kind of attention he gets is truly astounding, the way everybody is able to use him as their prop, hell, the entire set.

              Personally, I am just struck that he and Clinton are going to split 98% of the vote. That's the loudest voice in my head.

              • Personally, I am just struck that he and Clinton are going to split 98% of the vote.

                Although in much of our country more people will fill your request rather than either of theirs. Funny how your plan never seems to play out the way you claim it will.

                That's the loudest voice in my head.

                Is it crowded in there?

                • Although in much of our country more people will fill your request rather than either of theirs. Funny how your plan never seems to play out the way you claim it will.

                  ? Huh? What 'request' and 'plan' are you talking about?

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by shanen ( 462549 )

                    Z^5

                  • Your immediate goal - of driving down voter turnout by convincing people that either it isn't worth their effort to vote or that they themselves are not worthy of casting a vote - has been clear for a long time. Now what is it that you hope to accomplish by reducing voter turnout? That part isn't clear. Did someone convince you that there is some zany alternate plan that kicks in when voter turnout falls low enough that rewards the person who does the most to decrease voter turnout without physically red

                    • Ah, you're still trolling with that lie... Never said that.. and you never heard me say that. I do and always have recommended that you turn your back on republicans and democrats as they are not worthy of your vote. And it's no mystery that if their numbers go down sufficiently they will lose their seats. I guess the real mystery is why you disagree with that assessment, and can't acknowledge that when democrats lose, it's because they put up no opposing candidates that could motivate more people to vote f

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by shanen ( 462549 )

                      Z^6

                    • that is what started our host's petulant trolling against me and MH42 a few journals back.... Now he's just being a bratty child, which is a guaranteed way to lose even more votes.

                      Mommy!

                      Yep... thank you!

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by shanen ( 462549 )

                      Z^7

                    • And it's no mystery that if their numbers go down sufficiently they will lose their seats.

                      Actually, it's the very definition of a mystery, since this has never happened in recorded history. For you to claim the results of an experiment that has never been undertaken seems rather foolish.

                    • No, it's simple math. I didn't claim to know how people will vote. Regardless, they have no one else to blame.

              • Personally, I am just struck that he and Clinton are going to split 98% of the vote. That's the loudest voice in my head.

                Yeah, you keep freaking out about that. This [wikipedia.org] might help.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close