Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Most normal average American won't know the terms "Alt-Right" OR "Breitbart" before Clinton mentioned them and tying together their conspiracy theories, racism, AND Trump. No doubt Google is gonna get a spike in their search parameters for the terms and most will be disgusted and turned off.
That speech is brilliant on so many levels.
New Survey coming this weekend!![]()
Hardcore Internet right made up of white nationalists (excuse me "racial realists"), MRAs, conspiracy theorists, and some of the worst elements of the atheist movement. Run out of places like Breitbart, Disdain For Plebs, anything associated with Alex Jones, etc.
edited 25th Aug '16 6:47:05 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
What you appear to be saying, Capsase, is that merely mentioning a bad thing is bad in itself. Except how the fuck can you call out anything or anyone, or build your ground in opposition to them, if you're not naming them? Bad publicity is, in fact, bad, especially in the area of politics. Calling out Breitbart or any other right wing news source as being bullshit, and pointing out what that bullshit is, is in fact something that needs to be done by anyone who opposes them. The people who oppose her probably aren't going to have their minds changed by this, especially if they dislike her. They may, however, turn away from Trump if they see this is what his campaign manager is part of. This isn't going to backfire on Clinton just because she named them.
You're kind of making a mountain out of a molehill in this case.
edited 25th Aug '16 6:50:54 PM by AceofSpades
The underlying conditions fueling that movement aren't going to make her naming a news source backfire. And, quite frankly, I don't think it's going to grow that much bigger because it's already a small part of the population. It's becoming increasingly difficult to win solely on the white vote, let alone the white angry male vote. And there's just not enough of the other demographics that actually like him for him to win at this point.
Even thinking this "might" blow up on her is still making a mountain of a molehill. More like an anthill, really.
@Capsase- You're coming at the issue from the perspective that Trumpism/racism is caused by economic issues- my assumption is that you blame this on Democrats, right? I also get the feeling that as a corollary, you tend to think that Democrats/liberals point to racism as a way of taking the conversation away from economics and aren't actually sincerely opposed to racism, right?
I think it's at somewhat true that economic factors contribute to Trumpism/racism but the problem is a person whose racism is in some way linked to economic problems is still racist. And That's Terrible. And if their economic condition is bettered, then they'll just be an economically comfortable racist. Because their racism is based on the idea that they deserve to be doing well economically (and non-white people don't). If they actually were doing well economically, I don't see how that would stop their racism. Might actually increase it.
Edit- I mean you do have a point that to the extent that economic factors make Trumpism/racism worse, then it will continue as long as those economic factors persist.
Edit 2- One other thing. RE Clinton's speech herself. I give props to her/whoever wrote it for mentioning that detail noted on Slate and elsewhere that Trump's comments seemingly directed toward African Americans were actually given to white audiences and were intended to persuade some white voters that he wasn't racist and/or stoke racism against African Americans.
edited 25th Aug '16 7:17:50 PM by Hodor2
I think Cap is implying he thinks that the media paying serious attention to Trump gives him credence he wouldn't otherwise have and by implication the same might hold for highlighting Brietblag however-you-spell-it? In kind of an 'equal time to a flat-earther' thing?
Or maybe just that it will drive traffic there and give them pageviews and therefore advertising money.
edited 25th Aug '16 7:26:44 PM by Elle
Breitbart already made headlines back during the Shirley Sherrod incident, and from the way the media portrayed it, it seemed to be more like the National Review style of rightwing punditry. She's not necessarily giving it any more publicity than it's already had. If anything she's just setting the record straight for people who don't spend a lot of time on Internet forums.
Hell, Alex Jones
, one of the crazies she mentioned and whom Trump was interviewed by? Already runs a multimillion dollar media empire, based off his websites, his You Tube channel, a (truly dreadful) line of DVDs, and frequent appearances on television and radio channels both fringe and mainstream.
He has millions of fellow conspiracy nuts who already follow him. She can't make him anymore (in)famous than he already is.
edited 25th Aug '16 7:50:57 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@LSBK: The Southern Poverty Law Center has a helpful article describing what the Alt-Right is and giving a briefish history thereof: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right
The one thing I will say for the alt-right is that they get hilariously strange in ways that regular conservatives do not. Case in point
.

I... because it mentions Breitbart is the reason its going to backfire on her? That is such piss poor reasoning. It's kind of hard to criticize or refute a thing if you don't mention the source. Or previously place of employment, in this case. It's not going to backfire on her just because she mentioned the magazine's name. If saying the name of internet news site or source or place of previous employment was enough to backfire on people then we wouldn't have any politicians left.
And given who she's trying to appeal to, I very much doubt anyone that likes her speech is likely to like Breitbart. Hell, this might be a good thing if more people go see it and see what trash it is.