Guest Author -- 'Today's Anecdote' By Paula
Program Note: Today and tomorrow, I am turning my column space over to a regular commenter at my website (ChrisWeigant.com), who wishes only to be identified by her login name "Paula."
Paula took it upon herself -- unasked, entirely on her own initiative -- to begin conducting "man/woman on the street" interviews with strangers she interacted with in her daily life (she lives in Akron, in the bellwether state of Ohio), to see what they thought about the election season. Such interviews are, of course, anecdotal -- they are in no way a scientific survey of public opinion writ large. But in a lot of ways, they are much more representative than most of what you hear in the media about how real people are actually reacting to the election process. The responses are a lot more authentic and genuine than anything you'll hear from inside the Beltway, in other words.
If you're reading this article, you are already quite likely within the Beltway-centric wonky political bubble. What I mean by this is that you are likely to be well-informed about national politics, about events going on in the political world, and about the current state of the presidential race (and maybe even all the down-ballot races as well -- depending on your own personal level of wonkiness). The problem with being inside this bubble is you start to think that everyone in the country shares the same degree of fascination with the process that all bubble-dwellers have (myself most definitely included).
The following anecdotes show -- much more clearly than any poll or op-ed piece -- the honest opinions of some mainstream Americans on the 2016 presidential race. This is why, after reading (with fascination) Paula's comments for weeks, I finally realized my own shame -- a commenter was doing a bang-up job of citizen journalism that I was too lazy to do myself!
So I thought she deserved a bigger platform. I asked her to compile all the stories she'd been telling in her comments on my site, and put them together so I could run them as a "guest author" article. She's certainly done all the legwork, and I thought her anecdotes deserved a wider audience. When she sent me the collection, it proved to be enough material for two columns, so the anecdotes have been divided by month. Anecdotes from March will run today, and tomorrow tune in to see those from April. Paula begins with her own introduction, to explain why she started this project, so without further ado, I turn the column over to her (with my thanks).
-- Chris Weigant
"Today's Anecdote" By Paula
On Friday, March 11th, 2016, I was responding to one of Chris's posts and wrote the following: "Anecdotally: we walk our dog around the neighborhood every day, criss-crossing several blocks in different patterns. The other day I stopped to talk to a lady out raking her yard (a middle-aged black woman -- a stranger) and asked her if she was leaning Hillary or Bernie, anyone else, or no one. She said Hillary, because she thinks Hillary is experienced, going back to having been married to a president, and will know how to handle the job. She said she likes Bernie but he's old and she's not sure he'll make it through the campaign season, but Hillary seems so energetic."
As I walked away I thought: I'm going to start asking random people what they think, just to get a feel from people who -- maybe -- aren't political junkies.
So, for roughly the next six weeks, I asked random strangers to give me a snapshot of what they thought about the election season. I missed some days, and on other days got more than one response. Over time I broadened my question to: "What do you think of the election season to date?"
In the evening, I posted the responses in the comments at ChrisWeigant.com. Chris then contacted me privately and asked if I could collect the responses I'd been posting into an article. I have labeled the following collection Today's Anecdote (lightly edited to repair my grammatical errors).
March 12, 2016
[While walking the dog] I asked a middle-aged black man who was working in his yard (a stranger) where he was leaning. He said he's torn between Hillary and Bernie and is still praying on it. We got off-topic and I didn't get to ask what his particular doubts/concerns were with either. Missed opportunity.
Earlier in the day we'd met with a client (a gay woman in her early 60's) and she told us she and her partner are quite seriously researching potential countries to move to if The Donald were to win the election. They are genuinely frightened.
March 13, 2016
[At the grocery store] The lady in line in front of us (elderly, black) leans Hillary but worries something is going to derail her (re: the emails). She doesn't know what the actual issue is, she just knows it keeps coming up. She thinks The Donald "says stupid things" and "just because he's rich doesn't give him the right to abuse other people." Trump is also "not presidential."
The young bi-racial man at the checkout hadn't given the election much thought yet although he said he's a Democrat and will vote for a Democrat.
The elderly white security guard in the parking lot first said he hadn't decided yet because "things are too confusing right now." Then he came clean and said he'd never vote for Hillary, Bernie is a communist, and he might vote for Trump because "Trump will shake things up." My husband said I recoiled at this, but managed to paste a friendly expression on my face as I replied: "Bernie is a socialist, not a communist." He replied that Bernie was just too far out there -- socialism can't work because you can't pay down the "out-of-control debt" by spending and anyway, in his opinion, too many people want free stuff. He spewed a few more Fox News sound bites, but I can't recall which ones right now. I thanked him for sharing and he gave me a big grin.
March 14, 2016
Today's Subject: I spoke to a middle-aged white man who was working on the water line across the street. He's a city employee, don't know (offhand) if he's union or not. His first response was: "I don't talk about politics," but he was friendly so I gave it another shot, saying something to the effect that I know how hard it is to talk politics these days.
He jumped in: "To tell the truth, I don't like any of them."
Me: "You're not happy with any of the candidates?"
Him: "No. But I don't follow this stuff. I don't feel like I have any effect. It's just me and God. I stay out of it. I really think I'm not allowed to talk about this stuff while I'm on the job."
I thanked him and he looked relieved.
March 15, 2016, Primary Day
Today's Subject: I spoke to an early-twenties black man. He'd voted for Bernie. He'd been leaning Hillary initially, but worries about "some of her past votes." He said there's no question he'll vote for Hillary if she beats Bernie, but he'd like Bernie to win. He also said there's no possible way he'd vote Republican: "They would turn us back a hundred years."
I thought about asking people their thoughts at the polling location, but it didn't seem comfortable -- not enough privacy. According to the volunteers turnout has been high, at least here in our district. I figure tomorrow will be a new ballgame based on tonight's results, so I will be interested in people's thoughts after some of this shakes out.
March 16, 2016
Today's Subject: I spoke to a very well-preserved, early-60's white couple doing a power-walk around the neighborhood. When asked their views about the election season they both laughed, but not cheerily, more in disbelief.
The woman then said the election season to date has been "entertaining" (said sardonically). The man said he's watched several debates and, yes, "they'd been entertaining." He added he was glad Hillary has started "pulling her own votes" and that "the Republican Party is (using finger quotes) effed up." I think he was too nice to swear.
March 17, 2016
Today's Subject: Older black woman coming into grocery store. She gave me an earful!
"I have never seen anything like this election season. I am horrified at what I am seeing. I am glued to the TV and it is terrible. These candidates are all about them. They are supposed to be representing us. The rhetoric coming out of the right is terrifying. People are struggling out here and it isn't just race. I know people with college degrees that can't get work. They should be focusing on their plans on how to help, not their personalities. I pray by the time we get to November we've cleaned this up."
Who is she leaning towards?
"I am 100 percent for Hillary. And it's not just because she's a woman! She has the experience and the realism. I like Bernie Sanders, but I just don't think he's realistic."
March 18, 2016
Today's Subjects: At the pet food store, on my way in, I spoke with a 40-ish white man (big guy wearing a "Go Browns" baseball cap). He thinks the election season has been "a terrible disappointment." He is shocked that Trump has been able to say the things he's said and is still "allowed to run." (I think a lot of citizens believe the "government" can do a lot of unilateral things it most certainly cannot.) He thinks Trump needs to be stopped. He just said "terrible, terrible" over and over.
Inside the store, a very youthful looking grey-haired woman opined the election season to date has been "a joke," and said "I blame John McCain" (for giving us Sarah Palin, she confirmed when I asked).
I didn't ask either of them who they were leaning toward.
I asked my neighbor (a 40-ish black woman) who she was leaning toward and she said she doesn't favor anyone, but she definitely DOESN'T like Trump. She said at first she considered him, but when he "made fun of the disabled reporter, that did it." She went on to mimic him and then made "I'm disgusted" faces.
March 20, 2016
Today's Subject: Hubby and I went to the library this afternoon. I intended to ask some librarians their thoughts, but got absorbed looking at books and forgot to talk to anyone until we were leaving. So, I talked to the lady who was walking to the exit as we were. She was probably early 60's, white.
What does she think of the election season so far? [That is what I'm now asking people. I'm not asking them who they support. I feel it's a more open-ended question and people are less wary of responding.] She immediately launched into a statement about how she thinks Trump will be stopped. She said he will either get taken out at the convention or the Electoral College will "handle it" and it will end up in the Supreme Court. I couldn't tell if she thinks that would be good or bad. She went on to say she hasn't made up her mind who she's for, although she does like the idea of the first woman president. But she's still undecided.
March 21, 2016
Today's Subject: Middle-aged black man walking down the street. He said he wasn't thinking much about the election although he expects Hillary will win. He said he probably wouldn't vote. I asked why. He said he lives under the poverty level and the election "is above my pay grade. I don't have money for anyone. What they do doesn't affect my life. Maybe things will get better after the election and I'll have something to vote for."
My goal is to get people to tell me their views without my influencing them. So, after I got his views I said: "Now, I'm going to try to influence you. If it's Trump versus Hillary or Trump versus Bernie, please, please vote!" He said: "Yeah, Trump would be bad news." So he might vote, he said. He thanked me, smiled and went on his way.
Just for a bit of context: I live in an interestingly mixed neighborhood. It's a housing development from the late 1920's-30's (my house was built in 1928) with a bunch of homes with lots of character (hardwood floors, woodwork, interesting details, etc). It is probably 60 percent black, 40 percent white. It is anchored by a Catholic grade school and the white population is largely elderly or young Catholic families with kids at the school. (The public school across the street from the Catholic school is almost 100 percent black.)
The neighborhood also includes middle-class white and black folks and many poor black folks. There are foreclosed homes, abandoned homes, and lots for sale where abandoned homes have been torn down (on every block) intermixed with really nicely-kept houses with carefully landscaped yards.
My group of blocks abuts (to the north) an upscale old neighborhood with 1920-30's Tudor mansions owned by execs, doctors, lawyers; to the south, we have a rough neighborhood with occasional gunshots -- all within a square mile or so.
March 22, 2016
Today's Subject: Walking the dog on the Towpath trail (park trails that follow our old canal system in Ohio), I stopped to talk to a very well-off looking white male senior who was stretching prior (based on his clothing) to doing a jog.
He immediately looked apologetic and said he knew nothing at all about the current election season. He said years ago he'd worked in the court system for a year and he was so turned off and disenchanted he's made it a point of avoiding all politics ever since. He said he was sorry: "I know that's not what you want to hear." I said not at all, what I want to hear is what people think -- he smiled and we moved on.
March 23, 2016
Today's Subject: Mid-fifties black man in neighboring block -- views on the election season so far?
"I think it's ridiculous! Who do we have to choose from? I'm leaning Hillary, but then she gets away with all those lies and the Clinton Foundation and all of that. Bernie Sanders is a communist. Trump and Cruz are racist and they are using people's fears to scare them. Hillary does have experience. Sanders is... he has some good ideas, but we can't afford them because we're such a debtor nation. Debt to our children and our grandchildren. Every child born today is $60,000 in debt! But Trump and Cruz talking about this stuff in Brussels -- they don't know what they're talking about! All you can do is pray for guidance to pick the lesser of the evils."
I asked what news sources he used.
"I think you have to get a cross section of the news. So I listen to Fox and MSNBC and CNN. I'm going to tell you something you probably won't like. I don't want to offend you. But you have to have Jesus. I don't believe in abortion or same-sex marriage. You have to believe in Jesus!"
March 24, 2016
Today's Subjects: Young white couple sitting on their porch stairs with baby and cat -- nice warm day today (thunderstorms on the way, though). Their reaction to the election season so far?
The young lady spoke first and just said: "It can't be Trump. That's the main thing."
Her hubby: "All you see is Trump on TV all day, but no one says anything good about him. I haven't heard one good thing about him, but he's still winning."
I couldn't help but interject that Trump is winning a subsection of the primarily Republican vote with a smattering of people who typically lean Dem. I said Bernie Sanders is filling stadiums and the media isn't covering him, but you could say he's every bit as popular as Trump. Maybe more.
They lean Hillary.
Hubby: "Bernie Sanders wants to offer free college, but we can't afford it. We have too much debt."
They then, and this was a first, asked me what I thought and we had a long and friendly conversation.
It's hard to boil down the state of things to people who are operating from a very superficial knowledge-base, but I started with the question of debt and said there's competing economic theories in play. One holds that the government should work like a family does: too much debt, you have to stop spending. The other is that government is one side, private sector is the other; when one is struggling, the other fills in (give and take) because the money just circulates (people > taxes > gov. > services > pays people > who pay taxes > gov. > services, etc.).
I said the Republican point of view (no taxes, no regulations) is supposed to encourage business and trickle down to everyone. Dems bought into the trickle-down idea, it's been tried now for years and it has been shown it doesn't work. Dems are pulling back from that philosophy now and want to use government spending (via infrastructure repair/replacement) to get money circulating again. I also talked about 40-year wage stagnation and money being hoarded and NOT circulated by the one percent.
They asked me questions -- it was really a pleasant back and forth.
The young lady said she knows that "Millennials need to be more interested in politics, but maybe we have to have children first to understand how important it is to our kids' future."
They were just a sweet couple.
March 28, 2016
I talked to a late-20's, white, male librarian. He doesn't pay attention to the campaigns "until after the primaries are over." Then, he looks at the positions of the main candidates and "I pick the one who's closest to what I support." He was a bit apologetic, saying most of the "noise" right now will all evaporate.
March 30, 2016
Today's Subject: Late-30's white woman, casually dressed, sitting on a stool in her driveway washing her car. How does she feel about the election season so far?
She wrinkled her forehead, laughed and thought for a bit, then said "disappointed."
I nodded encouragingly.
"All those Republicans with their convention stuff, they're a bunch of... a bunch of kooks! The fact that there's a lot of people who support him [Trump] is scary. I'm a Democrat. I got to see Bernie at Baldwin Wallace and I totally support everything he stands for. That Donald Trump seriously thinks he should be president is screwy."
I asked her what it was like to see Bernie and she said it was wonderful.
"If Hillary wins, I'll vote for her but I really like Bernie. If Trump wins we're going to be in a world of hurt."
She went on to say she'd seen some news footage of Trump supporters in Youngstown. She said they had signs about what would happen (bad) if Trump was beaten at the convention. One had "college" misspelled. She said she thinks the people supporting Trump are "ignorant."
March 31, 2016
(First time someone reacted with hostility.) Two ladies at grocery store. Well-dressed, white-haired. Turns out the older of the two was in her 90's. The other looked like her daughter, in her late 60's.
What did they think of the election season so far?
"I don't!" snapped the younger one, frowning at me and turning away.
Her mother smiled at me, much more friendly, and just said: "We don't pay attention. You just take it as it comes, take it as it comes. And since I'm in my nineties, I think I know something about that."
At pet store later: thirty-something white man. What did he think? He spoke in sentence fragments, never mentioning names. He could almost have been talking about either Trump or Bernie, although I think he meant Trump. (Should've asked, huh?)
"Volatile. That's how I'd describe it. One day he's up, next day he's down. Coattails -- who knows? The convention is going to be interesting. Looking forward to the primary season being over. He's attracted a bunch of people who don't normally vote. I don't think they understand how things work."
[Editor's Note: The second part of "Daily Anecdotes" from Paula, which cover the month of April, will run tomorrow.]
-- Paula
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Note:
OK, sorry for the massive delay, but I've approved several new commenters on Friday's article (most with Trump name suggestions).
I'll be commenting here on tonight's KY and OR returns, just FYI
Going back now to answer comments from the last several days, again, sorry for the delay.
Also: THANKS again to Paula for all the hard work!
:-)
-CW
Early KY returns -- Clinton has been leading, but that lead has shrunk considerably. Only 5% reporting in yet, though, long way to go...
-CW
Sanders pulls into the lead in KY! Only 9%, though...
-CW
After leading by only 300-800 votes, Bernie takes a bigger lead of 1800 votes with 20% in.
However, a technical note of caution:
I think eastern KY polls closed an hour before western KY. So if Bernie's center of support is in the east, he's going to have to rack up a BIG lead, since the west will be trailing in the counting all night long by an hour.
Just a thought... remember Illinois, when late votes came in from Chicago...
-CW
Congrats to Paula! I have always enjoyed your one on one interviews with various random people you encounter as you go about your day. I am glad Chris chose to share these with the world!
[5] Thanks!
Bernie opening up lead to over 3K votes. by percentage, he's up over 3 points. 25% in.
-CW
Big jump (western returns coming in faster) to 36%, and Clinton takes a very slim lead (300 votes).
This one could go back and forth all night, folks!
-CW
I think the big jump was a big wave from Louisville, actually...
-CW
Sanders back on top with 39% in, by 1900 votes.
-CW
Paula, nicely done!
I hope you have some great closing thoughts in part 2.
On to the race...It looks like a real nail biter, at 36% Clinton pulls back into the lead.
Just for recreational schadenfreude, i think i have a winner for nicknames, "trumpf the insult politics dog"...
45% in, Sanders opening up lead again, to 3K votes.
goode trickle [11] -
"I kid! I kid!"
-Triumph
Got a YUUUUGE laugh out of that nickname, there. Heh.
:-)
-CW
46% in, bernie up by 163 votes
52% in, Bernie holding 3K+ edge. But haven't seen any votes from Louisville for a while... Hillary might get a big chunk soon...
-CW
Boy, I called THAT one right... 54% in, Bernie only up by 700. More Louisville votes, and they're only at 48% of precincts in.
Chicago all over again?
-CW
Bowling Green just flipped for Bernie, which I was expecting to be bore Bernie, being a college town and all.
I guess the question to ask is will the major urban centers have enough population to overcome the rural areas...
I meant .. to be for Bernie...
goode trickle -
Good point. I just noticed Lexington has only reported 10%. Hillary might have a late-breaking edge in the urban vote. We'll see...
-CW
63% in, Clinton takes lead again.
Up by 300 votes. This one's shaping up to be a nail-biter!
-CW
Clinton up by 3 votes, with 63% in.
This has got to be the closest race of the whole season, so far... 260,000 votes for both of them, and they're only 3 apart!
-CW
Sanders back up with 65% in...
But not by much...
-CW
aaaaand bernie back up by 550 votes. see-saw battle.
what i'm wondering is what happened to the other 7% of the votes. write-ins?
Bernie widens lead to 2,200 votes. 67% in...
-CW
nypoet22 -
WashPost has graphic:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-primaries/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_0517-us-dems-table%3Aelections-2016%2Fstate-single
15,800 votes for "uncommitted" -- maybe KY has other issues/people on the ballot, and these are voters who didn't vote for either candidate? Or write-ins? I dunno.
-CW
73% - Clinton back in lead, as another wave of votes from Louisville comes in...
-CW
Excellent Paula. Congratulations!
Clinton was up 2,200, now only 1,600.
78% of Louisville precincts in, but only 8% of Lexington. Watch for those late-breaking urban returns...
-CW
OK, all Lexington votes now in, Clinton up over 4K (83% in overall).
Bernie's got a heavy lift to catch up, at this point. Still lots of Louisville votes to come in...
-CW
Clinton still up over 4K, with 84%.
If things don't change soon, it's looking like she might have squeaked this one out.
-CW
I dunno...this one could be dependent on absentee with the totals being reported by Click and Clack's statistian Margin Of'error..
88% and Bernie cuts Hill's lead to 3K. I still think it might be too little, too late, though.
-CW
91%, Clinton only up 1,100. Maybe I spoke too soon?
:-)
-CW
Daggon it...Hopkins County is sure being coy...
I think how that one breaks is how the state breaks. but eve then i still think that we will have to wait for the absentee ballots for a definitive winner.
And Sanders retakes the lead with 93% in!
Still only 78% in from Louisville, though...
-CW
goode trickle -
Good point. Or a recount, even.
-CW
Good heavens this is close.
[28]neilm: thanks!
With 93% in, over 400,000 votes cast, and they're 150 votes apart...
-CW
Paula -
I'd like to sincerely apologize for hijacking your comment thread. I had no idea this one was going to be this exciting!
Mea culpa!
:-)
-CW
Bernie still up, but 135 precincts out of 183 left to report are from Louisville...
Still, 95% in and Bernie's still up...
-CW
[40] Not expecting a lot of comments here - folks here have been reading these as we went along! So no worries!
I'm reading it's too close to call?
Hey, has anyone else noticed the reporting error from Baron County ?
With Louisville stubbornly stuck at 78% one has to wonder if some sort of ballot counting drama is unfolding...ala New York.
Louisville votes are in, and Clinton's up 2,500 votes. I think it's over, folks. 98.8 percent reporting, statewide. Just not enough votes left for Bernie to catch up.
On to Oregon!
-CW
Only 13 precincts left, Hillary still up 1900 votes. Barren Cty just came in, in a big chunk. Bernie won it, but it wasn't enough.
-CW
Looks like none of the networks are willing to call it, either way. I wonder what the automatic recount rules are in KY?
OR results in a half-hour...
-CW
Who would name a rural (assumably, farming) county "Barren County"???
I'm just sayin'...
:-)
-CW
Barren County ...Heh.
Maybe it was named during the height of the whiskey rebellion to signal "nothing here" move along.
In tonight's remaining Urban Center derby....I predict Portland for Bernie, Salem could go either way and Eugene for HRC.
goode trickle -
Eugene's a big university town, I bet it goes for Bernie. Hillary might pick up a bunch of eastern counties, though.
-CW
CW-
Good point, my predictions are strictly based off of my gut.
So while Eugene is a college town it is also in the more rural conservative belt, so I kind of have a feeling that it could go for HRC. If one follows the trend lines from states that have liberal mail in balloting rules they have tended to break towards HRC. Since Oregon has gone "Full Monty" I am not sure that the trend lines would apply.
Then again my judgement could be clouded by the the consumption of multiple refreshing Anchor Steam California Lagers (it is warm enough in our neck of the woods to make it a beer that sneaks up on you...).
OK, is it time for OR results?
-CW
well, kentucky looks official, hillary by half a percent. oregon polls should be starting to close right about now.
rather they started to close an hour ago, and results should be coming in now....
OK, first county results coming in!
less than 1%...
-CW
Wow, guess they pre-counted a bunch, 20% in all at once.
Bernie with a commanding lead, so far.
-CW
Something's odd with Marion County (Salem) - 11,000+ for Bernie, 257 for Clinton. That seems awfully lopsided to me...
-CW
OK, they fixed it. It was 11,257 for Clinton. I thought that must've been an error...
-CW
Ok...that's better Salem is breaking more like I expected. (69%)
50% in, Bernie maintaining 5% lead pretty steadily...
-CW
Oh, forgot to mention: Trump wins OR! (big surprise, right?)
:-)
-CW
Just went to the store, and when I came back they had called it for Sanders (60% in).
-CW
Interesting thing about Kentucky... Hillary won Kentucky in 2008 Primary as well..
But this time around she got 250,000 LESS votes than she did in 2008...
Things don't bode well for Hillary...
Michale
Kudos on the interviews, Paula.. :D
Very well done..
Michale
I asked my neighbor (a 40-ish black woman) who she was leaning toward and she said she doesn't favor anyone, but she definitely DOESN'T like Trump. She said at first she considered him, but when he "made fun of the disabled reporter, that did it." She went on to mimic him and then made "I'm disgusted" faces.
Interesting...
This lady slammed Trump for making fun of someone and then turned around and made fun of someone....
And no one finds this the least bit hypocritical?? :D
Michale
This lady slammed Trump for making fun of someone and then turned around and made fun of someone....
And no one finds this the least bit hypocritical?? :D
Oh of course.. It's Trump...
So that makes it OK.... :D
Gotcha
Michale
Well, Michale, we'll see who makes fun of him when he is president. Personally, I'm feeling much better about things now that I know Henry Kissinger will be setting the Donald straight. :)
This lady slammed Trump for making fun of someone and then turned around and made fun of someone....
And no one finds this the least bit hypocritical?
irrespective of which individual is imitating or being imitated, making fun of the disabled and deriding someone for making fun of the disabled are two different things. i guess that's not the way it reads to you, but we can ask paula about the tone of the encounter.
JL
JL,
irrespective of which individual is imitating or being imitated, making fun of the disabled and deriding someone for making fun of the disabled are two different things. i guess that's not the way it reads to you,
Making fun of someone is making fun of someone.. It doesn't matter if it's a disabled person or no...
Besides, according to ya'all Donald Trump is mentally disabled, right??
So, that lady was making fun of a, in ya'all's opinion, a disabled person...
Of course, ya'all could just admit what is blatantly obvious..
It's TRUMP... So it's OK to make fun of him... :D
but we can ask paula about the tone of the encounter.
The tone is not relevant...
Liz,
Well, Michale, we'll see who makes fun of him when he is president.
Yes, we will indeed...
And I am sure the people making fun of him will be the EXACT same people that whined and cried when people made fun of Hussein Obama... :D
Michale
@michale,
Making fun of someone is making fun of someone.. It doesn't matter if it's a disabled person or no...
no, mocking someone for their disability is worse. but what's more relevant is whether the person being mocked is the victim or the perp.
if alan punches bob in the face, and then cameron punches alan in the face to protect bob, alan punching bob was aggression, while cameron punching alan was defense. one is an unprovoked injustice, the other is a proportionate response to said injustice. if we couldn't make that distinction then there'd be no difference between the cops and the perps, between israel and the PA.
Besides, according to ya'all Donald Trump is mentally disabled, right??
no, as far as i know he has no disability, physical or mental. there are many people of average intelligence in the world; it's nothing to be ashamed of.
JL
Besides, according to ya'all Donald Trump is mentally disabled, right??
no, as far as i know he has no disability, physical or mental. there are many people of average intelligence in the world; it's nothing to be ashamed of.
That raises a good point...We DON'T KNOW if Trump or Clinton or Sanders has any physical or mental disability that should preclude them holding the office of the Presidency. Our police officers face a far more stringent vetting process to determine if they deserve the opportunity to attempt to become a police officer by attending the police academy. They will have every aspect of their lives investigated, they must pass thorough psychiatric and psychological exams, and lastly they must be able to pass a polygraph exam that focuses on their honesty and motivation for wanting to hold that position of authority.
If we are so careful and thorough in vetting those who wish to serve and protect our communities, why would we do any less when it comes to those seeking the most powerful position in the world?
Making fun of someone is making fun of someone.. It doesn't matter if it's a disabled person or no...
Sorry, Michale, but I am calling you on this one. You cannot say that there is no difference in the two situations simply because the action committed was the same. You want to us to believe that you see no difference in mocking a person for having a physical handicap and a person imitating Trumps' mannerisms.
Yet, you are able to differentiate shooting and murdering someone from shooting someone in self-defense, despite the action committed being the same. You and I agree that George Zimmerman did not deserve to be sent to prison for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin because it was Zimmerman defending his own life. But following your logic regarding making fun of someone, you should be arguing that Zimmerman deserves to be in prison.
Michale: don't be silly.
She was "making a face" like people make faces when they bite into something bitter or smell something nasty -- she was reacting.
Paula,
You said she was mimicking Trump...
But it's a small point..
I just used it to point out the small-minded-ness of those who have a holier than thou attitude..
Michale
Sorry, Michale, but I am calling you on this one. You cannot say that there is no difference in the two situations simply because the action committed was the same. You want to us to believe that you see no difference in mocking a person for having a physical handicap and a person imitating Trumps' mannerisms.
No, not IMITATING Trump's mannerisms..
MIMICKING Trump's mannerisms.. MOCKING Trump's mannerisms...
And, from the description Paula gave, that is what this lady was doing..
As I said to Paula, it's small point that simply illustrates the small-mindedness of those who claim to be above that sort of thing...
It's like when the Left Wingery complains that Trump calls people names then turns around and calls Trump names...
It's like when the Left Wingery complains about the violence of Trump supporters then remains silent when Left Wingery supporters tear up a state convention and issue death threats..
If one complains about something, one better not get caught DOING the exact same thing..
Wouldn't you agree???
Michale
Yet, you are able to differentiate shooting and murdering someone from shooting someone in self-defense, despite the action committed being the same. You and I agree that George Zimmerman did not deserve to be sent to prison for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin because it was Zimmerman defending his own life. But following your logic regarding making fun of someone, you should be arguing that Zimmerman deserves to be in prison.
It's different. :D
In the case of the Zimmerman shooting, the cause for the action was what differentiated the action between shooting someone and murdering someone. In that case, the cause for the shooting was preserving one's life.
In the case of this old lady, there was no cause to mimic/mock Trump... If, as she claims, it's wrong to make fun of someone, then it's wrong to make fun of someone. Period.. She refutes her own case by turning around and taking the EXACT same action that she condemns Trump for..
It would be as if I said to someone, "You know, you really shouldn't call people names. It's not nice, you frakin' idiot moron.."
Doesn't the latter kinda refute the former??
Having said that, yes I would agree that there is a DEGREE difference between making fun of someone because you hate them and making fun of someone because of a disability..
But ONLY a difference in degree... It's not a COMPLETE difference..
Michale
Doesn't the latter kinda refute the former??
No.
Doesn't the latter kinda refute the former??
No.
"Let's agree to disagree"
-Boris The Animal, MEN IN BLACK 3
:D
Michale
"How DARE you speak against the President!!! This is America!!! You should be thrown in jail!!!"
-FOREWARD for THE LAST PRESIDENT
:D
I still say that saying something like that is inherently contradictory... :D
Your mileage may vary....
Michale
She went on to mimic him and then made "I'm disgusted" faces.
@paula,
that's a bit ambiguous. did she mimic him to demonstrate his anti-disabled comment, then afterward make a disgusted expression? that's what it sounds like you're saying. it could also be read to mean that the faces she was making were mimicking. i had a feeling you meant the former, but i can understand how someone would read the latter.
JL
She mimic'ed Trump...
With all due respect to Dr Leonard McCoy, another word for "mimicing" is "mocking"...
And when you are mocking someone, you are making fun of them...
As I said above (TWICE :D ) it's a small point.
But it does illustrate the biggest problem that the Left Wingery has...
Hypocrisy... This DO-AS-I-SAY-NOT-AS-I-DO, HOLIER-THAN-THOU attitude...
It really bugs me..
The Left condemns religious people for their hypocrisy of their religion vis a vis treatment of gay peope.. And rightly so...
But maybe the Left needs to take a look in the mirror as well...
That's all I am saying...
Michale
@michale, [82]
you're right that to mimic or to mock usually mean making fun of someone, but paula already said that the tone of the woman's imitation was to clarify what she meant, not to make fun.
you're correct that political hypocrisy exists on all sides; you just happened to jump to the (logically sound but) incorrect conclusion about one particular woman, based on paula's choice of words.
JL
you're correct that political hypocrisy exists on all sides; you just happened to jump to the (logically sound but) incorrect conclusion about one particular woman, based on paula's choice of words.
Fair enough...
Michale
you're correct that political hypocrisy exists on all sides; you just happened to jump to the (logically sound but) incorrect conclusion about one particular woman, based on paula's choice of words.
Although, I would point out that we don't KNOW it's an incorrect conclusion because A> we weren't there and Paula's judgement would be biased and 2> Paula never responded to your clarification request in comment #81...
:D
Michale