Post by: Stupot on 09 Nov 2016, 08:21
Post by: AnasAbdin on 09 Nov 2016, 08:33
Post by: Radiant on 09 Nov 2016, 08:35
Post by: CaptainD on 09 Nov 2016, 08:38
Post by: Gurok on 09 Nov 2016, 09:14
An end of US imperialism? No more going after gold and oil, oh I'm sorry, "spreading democracy".
Also, expect a US-China trade war and massive investment in infrastructure.
Post by: Mandle on 09 Nov 2016, 09:17
What are your predictions for the next four years?
I think you meant: "the next eight years?"?
America elected Bush Dubberyah twice in a row...Surely they cannot let us down by not electing Trump to a second term?
On the positive side: I predict that Trump will expose most of the corruption in the American and worldwide political system through his sheer just stumbling around in a dark room and not knowing how to maintain the status quo of a coffee table over here or a lamp over there...
This might bring the whole world into a very dark room as well, where no one person knows just where they last placed their cup of tea, or where their other bedroom slipper got the heck to...
But maybe somehow by stumbling around in the darkness the world might have the opportunity to find a new light switch?
I dunno... I still think I'm having a weird dream...
But at least my mate owes me a beer from a year ago when I bet him that Trump would win!
Yay for beer...?
Post by: SilverSpook on 09 Nov 2016, 09:34
I may have to go back and revise some of my Neofeudal dynasties, though... Trump-Giulanis scale up the steep Forbes trillionaires list. :)
Post by: Scavenger on 09 Nov 2016, 09:36
Muslim, Black, Latinx, LGBTQIA+ and disabled folk will suffer, and it'll be an awful time.
Post by: Jack on 09 Nov 2016, 11:01
I think his inauguration will be held in Dealy Plaza. If not, the fed will make his life a living hell. Or he'll just pull an obama and do a complete 180.
Then again, I never really took his campaign seriously. Maybe I'm jaded and will be wrong again.
Hate crimes against minorities will increase, as a bigoted president has been elected, validating the views of awful people and empowering them to attack even more frequently than they already do.
Muslim, Black, Latinx, LGBTQIA+ and disabled folk will suffer, and it'll be an awful time.
Run! RUN! No! Leave the bag of dildoes! RUUUUUN!
Post by: Mandle on 09 Nov 2016, 11:14
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161109030447-04-empire-state-building-1108-super-169.jpg)
I don't know what does...
(But it's from real life... Brrrrrrr... )
Post by: Atelier on 09 Nov 2016, 11:21
It's so easy and fashionable to jump on the Trump-hate bandwagon. Social justice warriors have mobilised in force today. Someone I know is joining a demonstration outside the US embassy in London to protest against Trump being elected. Protesting a democratically elected leader in another country? I actually can't understand the stupidity of things like that. The only explanation has to be to gain personal sanctimony points.
The world still turns, and at this stage people should judge him on what he actually does and is politically able to do, rather than what he said to get votes. One thing is for certain though, the cold Russia-US relationship will thaw. Trump rightfully respects Putin.
Post by: Snarky on 09 Nov 2016, 11:35
Encouraged by Trump's lack of support for American alliances, Russia, China and other states step up confrontation with their neighboring countries. South Korea and Japan respond by rearming, which may include a nuclear weapons program. Other East Asian states make concessions, resigning themselves to increased Chinese influence. In the former communist states in Europe there's a decrease in faith in all the institutions and ideals of "the West": EU, NATO, liberal democracy. NATO continues to weaken and fracture (not just because of Trump, but also by the erosion of democracy in countries like Poland, Hungary and Turkey), and with no reassurance of common defense, individual countries start to arm up and pursue separate defense strategies. There's a worldwide rise in militarism and nationalism.
The US abandons many of its treaties, including the Iran treaty (so Iran resumes its nuclear weapons program), NAFTA (causing a loss in trade with Mexico that weakens the economy), the Paris climate change treaty (setting back any effective action to stop the ongoing global environmental disaster), and more. "Obamacare" is only partially abolished, but millions of Americans do lose their health care. Deep tax cuts lead to giant deficits, and to cuts in government programs and staffing. Anti-trade policies and attempts to "get tough" in trade negotiations with China and other countries lead to retributory policies that may escalate into a trade war. Together with the uncertainty caused by Trump's erratic behavior, this causes the economy to plunge into another recession.
On immigration, Trump's signature policies (the wall, deportation) are watered down or only carried out to a symbolic extent; most of his supporters don't notice, but some hardliners decry him as a traitor. In matters of social justice (police violence etc.), a Trump administration is unsympathetic and tin-eared, and this leads to increased social unrest. Killings both of cops and of black activists, by disturbed individuals who have been radicalized online, increase.
Blaming Muslims as a group for jihadist terrorism, Trump continues to nourish Islamophobia in America. Hate crimes against Muslims (and those who can be mistaken for Muslims) rise. Marginalized in this way, more Muslims are in fact radicalized into violence, while a larger group is drawn towards anti-Trump liberal politics. In the Muslim world, the narrative that the west is at war with Islam gains increased acceptance, delegitimizing American values and influences and strengthening extremists and authoritarian governments alike.
Coming into office as a sexual predator with a long list of scandals, a track record of fraud and illegality, not having isolated himself from his business interests, and with ties to organized crime, international fugitives and foreign oligarchs and dictators, Trump's administration quickly shows itself to be the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in memory, with Trump blatantly using the government to enrich himself. These scandals get considerable play in the media, but the GOP Congress is too craven and partisan to take any action to censure or rein him in, at least at first.
Already loathed and feared by half the country, Trump's shtick wears thin very quickly even for many who voted for him. His approval ratings fall to somewhere around the George W. Bush low point of 25%. Resentful and vindictive, he lashes out at his enemies and tries to use the powers of his office to get even with them. This leads to illegalities and abuses that dwarf Watergate.
... So, all around a fun few years ahead.
Post by: Blondbraid on 09 Nov 2016, 11:39
when the election comes down to two candidates that few really liked, and it's a very even result.
Americas political system was a modern, equal and democratic system in 1776.
The problem is, their political system was a modern, equal and democratic system...
...in 1776.
The election relly reminded me of this Simpsons clip. (https://youtu.be/4v7XXSt9XRM?t=44)
Trump may be an idiot, but I think the "WW3" doom-mongers that have appeared are worse.Even if Trump will not have absolute power as president, he will still have an impact on the public debate climate and how the rest of the world views USA.
It's so easy and fashionable to jump on the Trump-hate bandwagon. Social justice warriors have mobilised in force today. Someone I know is joining a demonstration outside the US embassy in London to protest against Trump being elected. Protesting a democratically elected leader in another country? I actually can't understand the stupidity of things like that. The only explanation has to be to gain personal sanctimony points.
The world still turns, and at this stage people should judge him on what he actually does and is politically able to do, rather than what he said to get votes. One thing is for certain though, the cold Russia-US relationship will thaw. Trump rightfully respects Putin.
And I'm not sure Trump being friends with Putin is a good thing, looking at what Putin did in Ukraine.
Hate crimes against minorities will increase, as a bigoted president has been elected, validating the views of awful people and empowering them to attack even more frequently than they already do.I find it disconcerting that someone sprayed a swastika on Trump's star on the Hollywood walk of fame, and nobody can tell weather it's by someone who opposed or supported him.
Muslim, Black, Latinx, LGBTQIA+ and disabled folk will suffer, and it'll be an awful time.
(http://cdn.uinterview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/news-donald-trump-walk-of-fame-swastika.jpg)
Post by: Jack on 09 Nov 2016, 11:44
Post by: Snarky on 09 Nov 2016, 11:48
Post by: Scavenger on 09 Nov 2016, 12:07
It's so easy and fashionable to jump on the Trump-hate bandwagon. Social justice warriors have mobilised in force today. Someone I know is joining a demonstration outside the US embassy in London to protest against Trump being elected. Protesting a democratically elected leader in another country? I actually can't understand the stupidity of things like that. The only explanation has to be to gain personal sanctimony points.
God damn do I hate when people say stuff like this. Like Trump hasn't been dehumanising entire groups of people for months. Like he hasn't picked a murderous insane vp who wants to fund torturing queer youth until they say they're straight to make it stop. Like what he's campaigned for hasn't been entirely bigoted and dangerous to people's very lives. How dare you expect us to take it lying down. How dare you say "oh, it's just the sjws scoring outrage points for kicks". People are fucking frightened of what's been validated here. One of the biggest mass shootings this year was entirely to murder queer latinx people, an intersection of two groups of people Trump has been rallying people against all year. I would be protesting too, not because he's a democratically elected leader but because what he's been selling is inhuman and monstrous and the fact that he got in is inhuman and monstrous.
If the only explanation you can think of for people to be upset is "sanctimony points" then you haven't been listening to a single word people have been saying about the very real danger to their and the people they love's lives.
Post by: Jack on 09 Nov 2016, 12:11
People are fucking frightened of what's been validated here.
Terrorised.
It's a swastika whichever way it's facing. It's just not a Nazi swastika.
Nothing is going their way these days it seems.
Post by: Stupot on 09 Nov 2016, 12:22
Quote from: Snarky
...Chilling read, man, even if only half of that comes true. :-X
Post by: Atelier on 09 Nov 2016, 12:51
How dare you expect us to take it lying down.
I'm not :-D I dislike Trump as much as the next person. But rather than flog a dead-horse I also wanted to say that I can't bear knee-jerk doom-mongering reactions to bad situations. A UK citizen protesting at the US embassy about that country's decision to elect someone is beyond futile. A little sense of perspective is needed. Like I say, even if he's a moron, just look at what actually happens before lamenting the approach of WW3 and pogroms.
How dare you say "oh, it's just the sjws scoring outrage points for kicks".
Yeah, for the vast majority of people in my circle it totally is. I see the same people protesting and whining on social media all the time about everything under the sun that they read a buzzfeed article on once. Last month it was Disney appropriating Polynesian culture, last week it was checking in at Standing Rock, today (and for one day only) it is Trump, tomorrow they'll forget about Trump and start talking about the gender-wage gap again.
Post by: Andail on 09 Nov 2016, 14:50
Eh, I actually don't know where to start.
Trump has an extensive track record of gaffes, failures, shortcomings, hateful rhetoric, childish vendettas, ill informed statements, etc, and is basically the epitome of a racist, homophobic, islamophobic bully, but people shouldn't protest because... because you have friends that also are annoyed with how Disney appropriates Polynesian culture?
We shouldn't be upset because we have only seen his past and not his future? So you can never judge a man until... you've travelled to the future and back and also know what he will do?
We can never criticise someone that others also criticise because then we're just jumping onto a band wagon?
We can never criticise someone if we also criticise something else because then we're probably just social justice warriors?
Post by: Danvzare on 09 Nov 2016, 15:55
If the Illuminati truly exists, they've definitely screwed this one up.
Post by: Blondbraid on 09 Nov 2016, 16:01
While I think that a lot about Trump have been exaggerated and taken out of context,
one of the most important parts of any democracy is allowing people to criticize their government,
and even receiving a majority of the votes does not put anyone beyond critique.
Another one of the great problems with American politics is that their system has split everything into two opposing teams with the "If you're not with us you are against us" mentality with little to no room for middle ground.
It's all so polarized, and makes people vote on which group they identify with rater than which policies they agree with.
Post by: Cassiebsg on 09 Nov 2016, 16:17
R.E.M. - It's The End Of The World As We Know It (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY) 8-0 :(
Trumps to do list:
- Build wall
- Export all Mexicans and Musilims out of the land (and maybe a few other groups too)
- Put Hillary behind bars
- Not accept the election result... oh wait! Scratch that..
Danvzare, precisely cause of our the USA voting system works, he works. Cause last I heard she had more votes than Trump... just not where it mattered... (roll) First was the Bush disaster, now this... Not even Bush voted for him!
Post by: Atelier on 09 Nov 2016, 16:21
people shouldn't protest because... because you have friends that also are annoyed with how Disney appropriates Polynesian culture?
No, but people that swap from one cause to another when it comes up in the news are so tedious. I know people who certainly don't hate Trump because he is Trump, but because it's a new fun thing that they can sink their teeth into. The real people who should be legitimately worried are US citizens, who can and should mobilise to do something about his election if they want to. But I cannot ever see how attending a rally outside the embassy in London makes one iota of difference other than the personal satisfaction of feeling that you are meaningful. But you're not. The US isn't going to de-elect Trump because Greg from Milton Keynes isn't happy.
Quote
We shouldn't be upset because we have only seen his past and not his future? So you can never judge a man until... you've travelled to the future and back and also know what he will do?
The 'time travelling' thing overcomplicates the question with paradox. Yes, naturally you can't judge someone on their future acts until they've happened. Judgments on past behaviour are a separate thing not contingent on knowing what he will do. Now the difference is important here because Trump strikes me as a man full of bluster and big statements to win votes. Which is why I think it's wrong to necessarily extrapolate his past behaviour and statements into a dystopian future, WW3, homosexuality becoming illegal, whatever. People do do this. Things will be shitter for certain, but I just don't see any of that happening.
Quote
We can never criticise someone that others also criticise because then we're just jumping onto a band wagon?
We can never criticise someone if we also criticise something else because then we're probably just social justice warriors?
Again this pertains to the SJW thing. An SJW's criticism of [insert topic] is irrelevant because they parrot opinions on absolutely every topic that doesn't fit into their worldview, and they are deeply hypocritical. The criticism is ephemeral and not directed at the object but towards their own satisfaction. For some prime examples look up Kate Smurthwaite and Laurie Penny.
Post by: Radiant on 09 Nov 2016, 16:37
Don't know why, but since yesterday I just can't take this song out of my head...
R.E.M. - It's The End Of The World As We Know It (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY) 8-0 :(
I think trumpocalypse sounds better than trumpageddom, really.
Post by: RickJ on 09 Nov 2016, 17:16
Quote
One of the biggest mass shootings this year was entirely to murder queer latinx people, an intersection of two groups ofInteresting example. Let's see if I understand correctly. A second generation Muslim man, whose religion teaches that gays
people Trump has been rallying people against all year.
should be imprisoned or killed goes into a gay night club and starts shooting "queer latinx people" all the while claiming
he is doing it because his religion says so. Trump is a bigot because he says Muslims from Muslim countries where they kill
and imprison gay people as well as others who aren't Muslim or as Muslim as they are shouldn't be allowed into our country.
Quote
Trump has an extensive track record of gaffes, failures, shortcomings, hateful rhetoric, childish vendettas, ill informedCan you give a specific example of something you actually heard him say rather than what other people said that he said? There is no question that he speaks his mind in a blunt and straight forward manner but that does not a racist make. Some may consider this rude and boorish but it's refreshing to hear a politician say what he thinks rather than saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear.
statements, etc, and is basically the epitome of a racist, homophobic, islamophobic bully
Maybe we should talk about what pres elect Trump he says he will do rather than regurgitate the losing side's campaign?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contract/
Cleanup Corruption
1. Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress
2. Hiring freeze on federal employees to reduce the workforce through attrition
3. Requirement to eliminate two federal regulations for every new one
4. Five-year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists
5. Lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying for foreign governments
6. Complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections
Jobs and Trade
1. Renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement or withdraw from it
2. Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
3. Order the secretary of the treasury to label China a 'currency manipulator'
4. Use U.S. and international laws to end foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers
5. Lift restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of U.S. energy reserves including shale, oil, natural gas and coal
6. Approve the Keystone XL pipeline project and other 'vital energy infrastructure projects'
7. Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to improve U.S. water and environmental infrastructure
Restore Security and Constitutional Law
1. Cancel Obama's 'unconstitutional' executive actions, memoranda and orders
2. Pick a conservative replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
3. Cancel all federal funding to 'sanctuary cities' that harbor illegal immigrants
4. Begin removing the 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the U.S., and cancel visas to countries that won't repatriate them
5. Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where incoming people can't be properly vetted.
Post by: DBoyWheeler on 09 Nov 2016, 17:17
I'm actually glad (and relieved) Trump won.
Post by: Snarky on 09 Nov 2016, 18:17
Cleanup Corruption
1. Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress
This is actually a terrible idea for reducing corruption, because it means politicians won't be thinking of their political careers, but about securing a job for after their term limit expires. Hence they'll be even more inclined to suck up to industry and do their bidding.
Quote
2. Hiring freeze on federal employees to reduce the workforce through attrition
3. Requirement to eliminate two federal regulations for every new one
These are also terrible ideas. Republicans have already forced the federal government through deep cuts that have severely reduced its ability to do its job. And the problem with regulation in the US is not federal regulation, but inconsistent state regulation that makes it very difficult to do business across multiple states. (Incidentally one of the problems the EU helps solve in Europe.)
Quote
4. Five-year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists
5. Lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying for foreign governments
6. Complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections
These may be good ideas in some form or another, but I note that Trump shamelessly and illegally tried to raise campaign funds from foreign donors, in one of the many scandals that got ignored because "OH NOES EMAILS!"
Quote
Jobs and Trade
1. Renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement or withdraw from it
2. Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
3. Order the secretary of the treasury to label China a 'currency manipulator'
... which will damage the economy.
Quote
5. Lift restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of U.S. energy reserves including shale, oil, natural gas and coal
6. Approve the Keystone XL pipeline project and other 'vital energy infrastructure projects'
7. Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to improve U.S. water and environmental infrastructure
Which will cause untold damage to the environment, bringing upon us the curses of future generations.
Also, the sum given by the US to UN climate change programs so far is only about $500 million.
Quote
4. Begin removing the 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the U.S., and cancel visas to countries that won't repatriate them
Most of these people are not "criminal" in any sense other than being in the country illegally, and there's already a big ongoing program of deportations. Trying to deport them en masse would be a logistical nightmare, require squads of police or agents going house-to-house to round people up, Gestapo-style, and would come at a great cost to the economy.
Also, there has been no net illegal immigration to the US since 2007.
Quote
5. Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where incoming people can't be properly vetted.
Refugees from e.g. Syria already go through a vetting process that is ridiculously thorough, even if they are elderly or children. There is of course no way to be 100% sure, but you know what? Most US terrorists are home-grown.
....
Anyway, to contemplate some possible positives:
For the last eight years, the Republican party has been sabotaging anything that smacks of good government or that could possibly be perceived as an Obama accomplishment, because they hate him more than they love their country. (Evidence: Obamacare, which started out as a Republican program.) If they can get out of the habit, maybe they can pass a few common-sense things that should have bipartisan support in any sane world.
Trump has talked of infrastructure investment, which the country badly needs. (As a European, the biggest shock on coming to the US for the first time is how run-down the whole country is. It honestly can feel like a third-world nation.) This money should be spent on maintenance and safety upkeep (things like roads, bridges, railroads, dams, water pipes, the electricity grid, etc.), as well as on increased security for vulnerable systems (particularly against hacking).
I also don't think that gay rights will be rolled back to the extent that some fear (e.g. a constitutional amendment to abolish gay marriage). Trump doesn't seem to really care about people's sexuality, and although Pence does, I think the GOP realizes that this is not a culture war they want. There will likely be some ludicrous "religious freedom" exceptions to equal protection laws, but those can be reverted once this embarrassing interlude is over.
Post by: Andail on 09 Nov 2016, 18:34
Can you give a specific example of something you actually heard him say rather than what other people said that he said? There is no question that he speaks his mind in a blunt and straight forward manner but that does not a racist make.Are we actually doing this? I mean, it's one thing if you support Trump, but are we going to pretend that he hasn't said the things he's said?
Here's a list of unsorted stupidity:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/the-absolute-trumpest-121328
Here's a list with only racist stuff:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
Are you going to say that those are just hearsay? Or taken out of context?
If you think that Trump is a person who speaks his mind and not just what people want to hear, here's a list of instances where he contradicts himself, presumably because it was the most populist thing to say at the time:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-contradictions-213869
When he admitted that he likes to grope women - grab their vaginas more precisely, it was when he didn't think there was a camera nearby, so that was propbably himself talking. Refreshing to hear?
Post by: Scavenger on 09 Nov 2016, 20:05
Interesting example. Let's see if I understand correctly. A second generation Muslim man, whose religion teaches that gays
should be imprisoned or killed goes into a gay night club and starts shooting "queer latinx people" all the while claiming
he is doing it because his religion says so. Trump is a bigot because he says Muslims from Muslim countries where they kill
and imprison gay people as well as others who aren't Muslim or as Muslim as they are shouldn't be allowed into our country.
1) He was an American born citizen growing up in a society that hates and fears homosexuality.
2) He wasn't a practicing Muslim, according to family.
3) Islam no more teaches that gay people should be killed than Christianity does.
4) Don't put people's identities in quote marks like that. Queer = LBGT, Latinx = Latino/Latina with the x standing for people who don't fall under either -o or -a. They're legitimate.
Being a Muslim is just like being a Christian - except you have different rituals and observances. If you actually talked to Muslims, you'd see an entirely different thing to your preconceptions - they run the full gamut like everyone else, nothing about being Muslim is inherently better or worse than any other religion. You realise that Muslims are just people, just like everyone else, right? You can't use the deaths of queer people to attack Islam, using us as a prop for your Islamaphobia. I mean, fuck sake. What are you doing to protect LGBT people? Voting for Trump?
Oh wait, Mike Pence announced that he would repeal the protections LGBT people gained under Obama (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/10/07/trump-will-roll-back-obamas-lgbt-rights-protections-mike-pence-confirms/). Whoops! He's all about religious freedom to discriminate (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/26/indiana-governor-signs-religious-freedom-bill-into-law/), too! And he wanted to remove HIV prevention funding so he could torture gay kids! (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/07/16/trumps-vp-mike-pence-tried-to-drain-hiv-funding-for-gay-cure-therapy/) So I guess that religious hate and terror is okay when ~white people~ do it!
Post by: Snarky on 09 Nov 2016, 20:11
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/06/is_donald_trump_s_closing_campaign_ad_anti_semitic.html
Post by: Jack on 09 Nov 2016, 20:34
Quote
But that wasn't even the most offensive thing Trump told his Jewish audience. He implied that he had little chance of earning the Jewish Republican group's support, because his fealty could not be bought with campaign donations.
“You're not going to support me, because I don't want your money,” he said. “You want to control your own politician.”
(laugh)
No wonder the internet loves him.
Quote
2016 will be remembered as the year 4chan put a man in the white house
Post by: RickJ on 09 Nov 2016, 20:37
Quote
Here's a list of unsorted stupidity:A couple made me laugh but really? Going back 30 years, the Howard Stern show, etc. In his own words “Sometimes they write positively, and sometimes they write negatively. But from a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about have far outweighed the drawbacks.”
Quote
Here's a list with only racist stuff:1. "I don't know who David Duke is. I don't want to disavow someone who I know nothing about."
David Duke, white supremacist, who made an unsuccessful run for office 15+ years ago but has not
been seen or heard of since. Trump had disavowed support of white supremacists on the previous day
and disavowed David Duke the day after he made the above statement. Of course the article makes no
mention of Hillary Clinton's association with a Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops
"In 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fondly eulogized Sen. Robert Byrd, a former member
and recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Clinton called Byrd “my friend and mentor” in a video message
to commemorate his passing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics#Robert_Byrd
2. "I am the least racist person that you have ever met.”
3. "I don't have a racist bone in my body."
4. "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me,”
when
5. “We're building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he [Judge Cruiel] is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can't even believe.”
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers' association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.
Here is a link to the National Latino Lawyer Association an advocacy group to be sure: websitehttp://www.nltla.org/victim-resources/ judges are not supposed to even have the appearance of any conflict of interest. Trump has a valid point that the judge's rulings appear to be unfair whether one agrees with him or not.
I stopped reading when when they started talking about his father's company in 1973. My wife and I volunteer as fair housing tester's so I know about that kind of thing. A group of politically connected people form a non-profit and get a government grant to conduct testing. They send volunteers to inquire about rentals who write a narrative of their experience. If the narratives don't match they file suit and get settlements. Presumably a third of the settlements go to the lawyers and the rest to the non-profit (not certain). They have to show results to continue getting the grants and authority to file suits. It's easy for a rental agent to get tripped up by varying their sales pitch or forgetting something. Sometimes they just sense the prospect is just not interested in renting a unit, testers not interested in actually renting.
Quote
When he admitted that he likes to grope women - grab their vaginas more precisely, it was when he didn't think there was a camera nearby, so that was propbably himself talking. Refreshing to hear?Actually he admitted that he was attracted to beautiful women and that sometimes he kisses them without waiting. He then said that if you are a star they let you do it and that they would let you do anything, even grab them in the putty. When I was much younger I would have found kind of talk disgusting, in third grade I would have said "Ooooo kiss a girl ... yuck!" but that was a long time ago. :grin: So yes, in fact I did find it refreshing that the guy talks like a normal human being.
Post by: Scavenger on 09 Nov 2016, 21:29
Actually he admitted that he was attracted to beautiful women and that sometimes he kisses them without waiting. He then said that if you are a star they let you do it and that they would let you do anything, even grab them in the putty. When I was much younger I would have found kind of talk disgusting, in third grade I would have said "Ooooo kiss a girl ... yuck!" but that was a long time ago. :grin: So yes, in fact I did find it refreshing that the guy talks like a normal human being.
If you kiss someone or grab someone without their consent, that's sexual assault. People will often let powerful people do whatever they want to them because they are afraid. Rich and powerful people can afford rich and powerful lawyers. They are often above consequence, because they have the power to absolutely destroy anyone below them. Why do you think women only stepped forward after Jimmy Saville's death? And even then, they were derided.
And if that's what you think a normal human being talks like, who the heck have you been talking to? Who are you?
As a bonus, here are some things Trump has said about David Duke:
- Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke's campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
- In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”
And suddenly he doesn't know enough about Duke to comment? Or he's become more sympathetic to him and wanted the racist votes?
Post by: Snarky on 09 Nov 2016, 21:53
And let's not forget the women who have come forward to state that Trump did in fact assault them, kissing and groping them without their consent, just as he said.
"Normal human beings" do not talk like this. "Normal human beings" do not act like this. If you think this is at all acceptable, your value system is out of whack.
Rather than go over all the other stuff, I'll just take the first point:
1. "I don't know who David Duke is. I don't want to disavow someone who I know nothing about."
David Duke, white supremacist, who made an unsuccessful run for office 15+ years ago but has not
been seen or heard of since. Trump had disavowed support of white supremacists on the previous day
and disavowed David Duke the day after he made the above statement.
Everyone of Trump's generation knows who David Duke is (and Trump in particular, whose daddy was once arrested at a Klan rally), and in fact Trump has discussed him in the past. This is also typical of how Trump dealt with controversy: he'd say or do something outrageous, then squeeze it for media attention until eventually half-heartedly walking it back ("OK. All right. I disavow, OK?"). By doing so he'd delight the racists and bigots, who understood that he couldn't openly embrace them and saw this as a wink and a nod. This is why he got the support of the KKK.
He picked a campaign manager with links to the alt-right. Both he, his son and highly placed campaign staffers regularly picked up memes and retweeted stuff from explicitly racist accounts. That doesn't happen innocently, it happens because you frequent those circles and corners of the internet.
Post by: Gurok on 09 Nov 2016, 22:28
Quote2016 will be remembered as the year 4chan put a man in the white house
Gotta quote this. If anyone here follows /pol/ at all, they'll know that this is all the doing of an elder Egyptian chaos god named Kek who willed it into existence. ;)
Snarky, don't do this. It's not "It's the Jews". There are plenty of people featured in that ad campaign who aren't Jewish, Slate just framed it as though there weren't. If someone in a position of power is corrupt, and they happen to be Jewish, that shouldn't exclude them from criticism. If someone says it's because they're Jewish, then we can talk. Trump's daughter married a Jewish real estate developer. The prime minister of Israel just posted a video praising Donald Trump's support of Israel. I think if an anti-Semitic person were to vote for Trump, he'd be very conflicted.
Post by: LimpingFish on 09 Nov 2016, 22:29
Trump won because a significant part of the American populace (Older/White/Male/Straight/Conservative) are tired of being labeled the "WRONG" America, by, let's face it, the vocal minority (Young/Non-White/Female/LGBT/Liberal). They yearn for a return to (mythical) America where the white man was in charge, women knew their place, gender was a binary state, and being the most powerful country in the world meant having the most bombs.
The reality is, by voting Trump to power, all they've done is highlight that in 2016 America racism against black people is just as widespread as it was in the 1960s, the LGBT community is something to fear and demonize, world peace is achieved through the destruction of your enemies, and that the American political system is inherently broken.
To the Americans who believe that Donald Trump isn't the racist, misogynist, moronic, hateful sack of crap that he actually is, well...I guess he's the man for you. A man who never had to go without, a (terrible) businessman who made his money by exploiting your tax system and your blue-collar workforce, a man who cares about what's best for your country about as much as he cares for a realistic hair piece.
A man who, in his own words, hates Mexicans and Muslims, bases his opinion of women on how fuckable they are, and wondered (out loud!) why America, in matters of global unrest, just didn't nuke the troublemakers. This man now speaks for you, America.
Have fun.
To everyone else, who thinks this is the end of days, Trump will be a Republican president in name only. Most of his own party are wary of what he will try to do once in office, and the chance of any of his more dangerous (see: moronic) suggested policies making it past congress are highly unlikely. Republicans may be close-minded racists, but they're not about to let their country go down the toilet on the say-so of a sentient croissant who's best pals with the Ruskies.
Post by: Ryan Timothy B on 09 Nov 2016, 23:58
And if that's what you think a normal human being talks like, who the heck have you been talking to? Who are you?Clearly a typical American likely born into adhering to racist and sexist values instilled to him by family/town/state, and worse: a Trump supporter. There's no question why Trump got elected with responses like that. "I used to think women had cooties, but now I am a grown man who fondles them without their consent - like ALL normal human beings do"
Post by: selmiak on 10 Nov 2016, 00:58
When will Hillary fight back and make him the JFK of our time and then rush in to take over?
Post by: Baron on 10 Nov 2016, 02:09
The really sad thing here is the swathes of society who genuinely should have been outraged by what Trump said on the campaign trail not turning out to vote. About 51% of the US population is female, which alone should have lost Trump the election. But it is an indisputable fact that many of those women just didn't seem bothered enough to vote against him. Indeed, over 50% of white women supposedly voted for him (source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3920042/A-breakdown-Deplorables-33-Latino-men-26-Latino-women-voted-Trump-52-white-women.html)). Although not as large a segment of the population, the same could be said for target minorities (same article). I don't want to be the guy that blames the victim, but if someone treats you worse than dirt and then you vote for him, then you're kinda the author of your own misfortune.
Post by: Ali on 10 Nov 2016, 04:00
Social JUSTICE Warrior. If that sounds like a bad thing to you, you should strongly reconsider. If you feel comforted by Trump's illiterate jingoism, you should strongly reconsider. If you think people have no reason to be frightened, you should strongly reconsider. If you don't see the racism and misogyny, it is either because you choose not to or because you are a racist misogynist.
You're the ones that future generations will look back on in utter bewilderment. How could ostensibly decent people have been so wrong?
EDIT: To comply with forum rules, I have replaced abusive language in the above post with the phrase "strongly reconsider". Yes, it has affected the scansion.
Post by: dactylopus on 10 Nov 2016, 04:57
Having become President and commander of the armed forces...
... So, all around a fun few years ahead.
Best post.
*Gets Flame Shield up*
I'm actually glad (and relieved) Trump won.
I have no idea why.
Trump supporters, in my opinion, are objectively self-identified terrible people.
Post by: Snarky on 10 Nov 2016, 05:27
Putting my mod hat on for a second: Emotions are clearly running high over this, but let's keep in mind a couple of the forum rules:
- Respect other people; posters and non-posters alike. It's understood that the tone of some threads can get heated, and that some things are said jokingly, but harassment, offensive remarks or swearing at people will not be tolerated.
- No threats or aggressive hate speech.
Some of us may want to edit our posts to comply with the first point in particular.
Post by: Radiant on 10 Nov 2016, 07:31
The really sad thing here is the swathes of society who genuinely should have been outraged by what Trump said on the campaign trail not turning out to vote. About 51% of the US population is female, which alone should have lost Trump the election. But it is an indisputable fact that many of those women just didn't seem bothered enough to vote against him. Indeed, over 50% of white women supposedly voted for him (source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3920042/A-breakdown-Deplorables-33-Latino-men-26-Latino-women-voted-Trump-52-white-women.html)). Although not as large a segment of the population, the same could be said for target minorities (same article). I don't want to be the guy that blames the victim, but if someone treats you worse than dirt and then you vote for him, then you're kinda the author of your own misfortune.
I've seen this sort of thing before, and it keeps baffling me. For instance, in my country we have a (tiny minority) religious conservative party that, among other things, wants to revoke women's voting rights. And somehow women still vote for them. How strange is that?
Post by: Blondbraid on 10 Nov 2016, 08:09
Maybe they've convinced themselves that everything will be better for them that way, if they want to be housewives with lots of kids and married to a rich man and cannot possibly imagine a woman wanting something else?The really sad thing here is the swathes of society who genuinely should have been outraged by what Trump said on the campaign trail not turning out to vote. About 51% of the US population is female, which alone should have lost Trump the election. But it is an indisputable fact that many of those women just didn't seem bothered enough to vote against him. Indeed, over 50% of white women supposedly voted for him (source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3920042/A-breakdown-Deplorables-33-Latino-men-26-Latino-women-voted-Trump-52-white-women.html)). Although not as large a segment of the population, the same could be said for target minorities (same article). I don't want to be the guy that blames the victim, but if someone treats you worse than dirt and then you vote for him, then you're kinda the author of your own misfortune.
I've seen this sort of thing before, and it keeps baffling me. For instance, in my country we have a (tiny minority) religious conservative party that, among other things, wants to revoke women's voting rights. And somehow women still vote for them. How strange is that?
There are many historical examples of people working for causes seemingly against their rights, for example I've read that some of the house-slaves in the south was actually for slavery, because they were clothed and fed and allowed to order around the plantation slaves working on the fields. When the Nazis occupied Europe, many locals collaborated with them, even in the Slavic countries despite slavs being considered inferior by the Nazis. Some people will be content in servitude as long as there is someone below them to kick.
But for all his flaws, at least Trump has never said that he wanted to take away women's voting rights.
Post by: Scavenger on 10 Nov 2016, 08:29
... And some, I assume, are good people.
Something I'm genuinely curious about, is whether or not voting for someone who would marginalise and dehumanise vast swaths of people, remove their lifelines, remove their protections, potentially leading to their murder by neglect or hate, can disqualify you from being a good person.
I mean, yeah, nobody is inherently a good or bad person, but surely doing something like this, very arguably a violent act against marginalised people, is not a good act? Donald Trump has spent the entire election bragging about destroying and subjugating people, about murdering families, chomping at the bit to use nukes on them, cheering on the deportation of people living in the United States, dividing people, choosing a vice president who is unquestionably evil as well and will enact legislation that would subjugate LGBT folk and destroy our delicate environment because of his unhinged beliefs....
... is it out of the question for me to say that every voter that decided on Trump has, unwittingly or not, performed a great and terrible evil upon this world? That, even if for the majority of the time, they were good people, at the moment they decided to put that X, to press that button, they were being awful people?
I'm used to having to take sides, and have to defend my and my loved ones' basic humanity against people, who, because of their "opinions" (which they will harp on forever as being sacred, as opposed to my right to life), want us dead or exiled. I don't want to have to do that here as well, Snarky. This isn't a case of me not being satisfied because the other team won, I'm legitimately terrified of what they, or bigots empowered by his presidency, might do to my American friends.
Post by: Snarky on 10 Nov 2016, 10:49
... is it out of the question for me to say that every voter that decided on Trump has, unwittingly or not, performed a great and terrible evil upon this world? That, even if for the majority of the time, they were good people, at the moment they decided to put that X, to press that button, they were being awful people?
I'm used to having to take sides, and have to defend my and my loved ones' basic humanity against people, who, because of their "opinions" (which they will harp on forever as being sacred, as opposed to my right to life), want us dead or exiled. I don't want to have to do that here as well, Snarky. This isn't a case of me not being satisfied because the other team won, I'm legitimately terrified of what they, or bigots empowered by his presidency, might do to my American friends.
I can't answer the bigger philosophical question, but I think that as far as forum rules are concerned, you can certainly express your view that certain actions or attitudes are terrible. Stuff like "I find what you say outrageous and offensive" is fine. "Fuck you, you worthless piece of shit! Your kind deserve to be shot!" ... not so much.
As for needing to defend people's basic humanity; like I posted above, we will not tolerate "aggressive hate speech", but neither is this forum a "safe space" where potentially offensive views are automatically prohibited. Expressing support for someone who has made statements that might not be acceptable on this forum is a difficult case to deal with, particularly when that person is the President of the United States. I'm afraid I don't think it's something we can or should prohibit.
Post by: Jack on 10 Nov 2016, 11:26
If generation snowflake wants to blame anyone, they should turn their eyes to their beloved mainstream media, who nurtured trump when they thought (like everyone) that he was a clown that had no chance of winning. Colluding with the DNC, they then marginalised (http://observer.com/2016/11/new-dnc-emails-expose-more-dnc-media-clinton-campaign-collusion/) sanders, the true favourite, and promoted the hell out of hillary.
They insisted on lifting up the most openly corrupt female politician in history. They absolutely insisted on it, going so far as to break several laws and the contract of public trust.
They tried to steal an election, and now everyone is paying for it.
Post by: Atelier on 10 Nov 2016, 11:27
Social JUSTICE Warrior. If that sounds like a bad thing to you, you can fuck right off. If you feel comforted by Trump's illiterate jingoism, you can fuck right off. If you think people have no reason to be frightened, you can fuck right off.
Yeah, in my post I was ranting about those people who pick up a cause just for the sake of picking it up. Nobody here is doing that. It was super off-topic so I apologise that you misunderstood me.
Post by: Ali on 10 Nov 2016, 11:35
They insisted on lifting up the most openly corrupt female politician in history.
The key word in this sentence is 'female'.
Post by: Danvzare on 10 Nov 2016, 12:17
The key word in this sentence is 'female'.They had a black president, I'm sure they wouldn't mind a female one. Unless America is secretly more sexist than they are racist, but I'm fairly sure it's the other way around. (laugh)
Post by: Jack on 10 Nov 2016, 12:20
The key word in this sentence is 'female'.
And that's more drivel directly from the MSM.
If you don't like me you're a mysogynist/antisemite/racist!!!
That person becomes untouchable, which is nothing but a political ploy.
After posting I actually wanted to amend that "most openly corrupt politician in history". I mean, there's actual documents in this case.
Post by: Andail on 10 Nov 2016, 12:27
I'm certainly one for trying to understand the opinions and ideas of an opposing side, and I've read a number of articles already explaining or at least trying to explain Trump's appeal and why he won.
I understand that there's this large, silent mass of people - often rural, often working-class, often older - who feel ignored and neglected, who feel that loud, urban, young, well-connected minorities get all the attention, while they themselves feel ever more distanced from the political elite.
Here's what I don't get:
How did Trump get to be their champion? I mean, I'd totally understand if there emerged a person with a working class background, a hard-working, stand-up guy, decent and straightforward in his rhetoric, one who represented good old-fashioned family values and all that.
Instead you've gone with a person who inherited millions of dollars from his father, built himself a tower with golden fountains and spent all of his time rubbing shoulders with the absolute financial elite, travelling the world in a private jet. Is that the personification of the American dream?
Post by: Ali on 10 Nov 2016, 12:42
And that's more drivel directly from the MSM.
If you don't like me you're a mysogynist/antisemite/racist!!!
My rule is more like: if you don't like women/jews/black people you're a mysogynist/antisemite/racist. (Though there is an amazing intersection between mysogynists/antisemites/racists and people I don't like.)
You absolutely should remove the word female from that sentence, because her femaleness is utterly irrelevant to her level of corruption. You're probably right that Clinton lost more than Trump won. But the idea that she is any more corrupt than other career politicians with her prominence and experience is a conspiratorial fantasy with misogynist overtones.
I admire Andail and others for trying to understand the white, disenfranchised, less educated, white, lower-middle class, white communities that came out for Trump. But we've been tolerating and indulging the 'valid concerns' of ignorant, culturally atavistic white folk since the 2008 crash (which had bugger all to do with immigrants) and that's given us Brexit and Brexit x5. Hopefully not the first two links in a dangerous chain-reaction.
Post by: Jack on 10 Nov 2016, 12:51
But the idea that she is any more corrupt than other career politicians with her prominence and experience is a conspiratorial fantasy with misogynist overtones.
People who don't believe her level of corruption is shared by all career politicians with her prominence and experience are living in a conspiratorial fantasy?
(laugh)
So you really don't care what they do. Just what they say?
Post by: Ali on 10 Nov 2016, 13:11
Anyway: https://xkcd.com/386/
Post by: Radiant on 10 Nov 2016, 13:32
But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.
Here is some research on the topic. (https://www.quora.com/What-empirical-evidence-exists-that-Hillary-Clinton-is-no-more-dishonest-or-prone-to-lying-than-other-politicians)
Post by: Snarky on 10 Nov 2016, 14:41
On one end of the spectrum there's the point of view that having a moderate or centrist position on economic policy, where you think the financial industry is an important pillar of the country's economy and you have to work with them, is by definition corrupt. A bit further along you have the argument that big donors can influence policy, because they gain access to politicians (people in Congress have to spend hours every day on fundraising, talking on the phone with people who they're trying to get to give them money) and can influence their thinking that way, and because they can filter out politicians whose views they don't like by not supporting them (or even supporting their opponents). Is that corrupt?
Then you have the idea of politicians or former politicians trading on their fame, status and network to make money. Is that corrupt?
You can certainly think that it's grubby and not how the system ought to work, but none of this is illegal, and it's pretty much universal in Washington. Yes, the Clintons are part of that system, because they've had to be to come as far as they have, but pretending that it makes Hillary Clinton "the most openly corrupt politician in history" is nonsense. Where was all this outrage when John "Keating Five" McCain ran? And which of the candidates wanted to overturn Citizens United again?
When you get to claims of actual criminal corruption, the evidence gets incredibly flimsy, and you're stuck with a long chain of hostile assumptions and recursive conspiracy theories. There are some ethical lapses and times when she or those around her should have been more careful to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but in each case the closer you look at it the more you find that there's nothing there. Unfortunately she's the victim of a 30-year-long hate campaign that has convinced much of the American people not to trust her, and she's not helped by her instinctive defensiveness and awkward and stiff public persona.
Post by: dactylopus on 10 Nov 2016, 15:00
... And some, I assume, are good people.
...Some of us may want to edit our posts to comply with the first point in particular.
My apologies. I do not mean any offense to anyone in particular. I just don't see how anyone with a conscience could, in their right mind, support this obviously evil megalomaniac. And I think that those who did should look themselves in the mirror and really think about what kind of person they want to be.
Now I'm not saying that Trump is the next Hitler or anything, just that he is very clearly a loathsome human being. Anyone who would align themselves with him must therefore be horrible themselves.
... is it out of the question for me to say that every voter that decided on Trump has, unwittingly or not, performed a great and terrible evil upon this world? That, even if for the majority of the time, they were good people, at the moment they decided to put that X, to press that button, they were being awful people?
I honestly don't believe that it is out of the question. There is nothing actually good about Trump. Yes, he speaks his mind, but it cannot be a commendable trait when he continually spews hateful drivel. If you support this man, you are validating all of this hate speech. How can you be considered a good person in doing so? I'll agree that these people may otherwise be good people, but that's like saying that any hate group is made up of otherwise good people when you overlook all of their terrible qualities.
I'm no fan of Clinton, she is way too far to the right for me. But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.
I agree that Clinton is too far to the right. She was, in my opinion, the best Republican candidate in the race. But despite all of her flaws, she is still preferable to Trump by a wide margin on so many issues that it's ridiculous that there are even people who disagree with that fact. And I have heard a lot of people who are otherwise Democrats opposing Hillary for simply being female. That's something that should not be happening, and it saddens me to no end that we are still living in a world where plainly wrong opinions like this even continue to exist. The fact that they are open about it, and that the view is prevalent in some areas, is more than disheartening, it's frightening.
So my opinion is that Clinton and the Democrats stole this election from Bernie Sanders and handed it to Trump and his under-educated, hateful troll supporters. Also, once again the Electoral College has failed America.
Post by: Radiant on 10 Nov 2016, 15:32
And I have heard a lot of people who are otherwise Democrats opposing Hillary for simply being female.
Yes. To me, one of the most surprising results of this election is that the majority of white females (and about one-third of non-white females) voted for trump. All issues of policy aside, I would expect the consideration of "the first female president" vs. "someone who publically endorses sexual harassment" to have a bigger impact than that.
Post by: Radiant on 10 Nov 2016, 16:17
Post by: Jack on 10 Nov 2016, 18:27
But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.
I used the word female because I assumed there must've been male politicians more openly corrupt than her. Your assumption that I used the word female pejoratively is... Yes...
You can certainly think that it's grubby and not how the system ought to work, but none of this is illegal--
When you get to claims of actual criminal corruption, the evidence gets incredibly flimsy, and you're stuck with a long chain of hostile assumptions and recursive conspiracy theories.
These are blatant lies.
This is illegal:
Clinton Foundation admits it didn't notify State Department of $1 million Qatar gift (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/06/clinton-foundation-admits-it-didnt-notify-state-department-1-million-qatar-gift.html)
This is illegal:
Hacked Emails Prove Coordination Between Clinton Campaign and Super PACs (https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/)
That's not all, and it's only from what was leaked. A candidate can skirt and exploit the law and still be morally reprehensible and unfit for office.
You can try to convince yourself that everything that leaked about her and what it implies is nothing, or you can convince yourself that "it's just how things are done". It's that kind of apathy that perpetuates a political system like this.
The point is that people could no longer afford to be that intellectually lazy, and looking at what was available and provable, they decided that treason is worse than being an asshole.
Post by: Ali on 10 Nov 2016, 18:47
But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.
I used the word female because I assumed there must've been male politicians more openly corrupt than her. Your assumption that I used the word female pejoratively is... Yes...
If there are male politicians more corrupt than her, then she is not exceptionally corrupt! She belongs to the group 'politicians', not 'female politicians'. Your use of the word was sexist and you cannot get out of that by ending sentences... with ellipses...
Post by: Grok on 10 Nov 2016, 18:57
I had already planed to use a character known for the catch phrase "You're fired" in the the episode of Space Rangers under work.
When that some one got himself elected I just had to make a comic strip of one of the planed options in the upcoming game.
(http://orig15.deviantart.net/4df8/f/2016/314/d/8/you_can_t_fire_me_by_pekj-danyury.png)
(I hope including this in two different threads is not a no-no.)
I'm not American. I don't live in America. I had no vote to give. If I had had one, I wouldn't have wanted to vote for either of the two main candidates, but one candidate is completely unthinkable and the other one is just quit bad, in my opinion. But as I said, not my call to make.
We live in interesting times as the old Chinese curse goes ("May you live during interesting times.").
Post by: dactylopus on 10 Nov 2016, 19:04
Post by: Danvzare on 10 Nov 2016, 19:13
Is Clinton evil? Maybe. But she's certainly the lesser of 2 evils. That's worth something.But there were like two or three other candidates?
Why choose the lesser of two evils when there are candidates that aren't evil?
I've constantly heard the whole "you'll throw your vote away", but that just makes me question.
On the one hand everyone is being told that they should always vote, because no matter how insignificant a vote may seem, it can still help.
Yet on the other hand, everyone is also being told to never vote for a third party because that's just throwing your vote away.
WHICH ONE IS IT!!! >:(
Post by: Radiant on 10 Nov 2016, 19:15
I've constantly heard the whole "you'll throw your vote away", but that just makes me question.
On the one hand everyone is being told that they should always vote, because no matter how insignificant a vote may seem, it can still help.
Yet on the other hand, everyone is also being told to never vote for a third party because that's just throwing your vote away.
WHICH ONE IS IT!!! >:(
The setup of the "electoral college" system means that any candidate that cannot reach 50.1% of the votes in each of a substantial number of states is completely irrelevant.
Post by: Snarky on 10 Nov 2016, 19:33
These are blatant lies.
This is illegal:
Clinton Foundation admits it didn't notify State Department of $1 million Qatar gift (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/06/clinton-foundation-admits-it-didnt-notify-state-department-1-million-qatar-gift.html)
The source does not support the claim. It only says that it "apparently" violates an ethics agreement she signed, which was a personal pledge and does not have the force of law. And in fact that's not even correct, as I was able to figure out within a couple of minutes of googling: the agreement in question is NOT the one Clinton signed, but a separate "memorandum of understanding" by the William J. Clinton Foundation, which Hillary Clinton had no role in at the time and did not sign. (It was signed by the Foundation's CEO, Bruce Lindsey.) And on top of that, it's not clear that the failure to notify in this particular case does in fact violate the somewhat fuzzy language of the agreement.
You also haven't established any actual corruption. The Clinton Foundation collects donations for its charitable work. We all knew that. At most, what you have here is poor reporting by some staffer at a foundation Hillary didn't actually work for. Like I said, the more you look into it, the less there is to see.
This is illegal:
Hacked Emails Prove Coordination Between Clinton Campaign and Super PACs (https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/)
Again, the source does not support the claim. The hacked emails reveal that the Clinton campaign coordinated with Correct The Record... and then later the article explains that CTR from the very beginning has openly stated that it would be coordinating with the campaign, arguing that it is exempt from some of these restrictions for various legal reasons. Essentially they've found what they argue is a legal loophole.
Are the rules around campaign spending a joke? Absolutely. Should they be fixed? Hell yes! To do that you need to overturn Citizens United (or pass a constitutional amendment). And which candidate promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would do so? It sure as shit wasn't Donald Trump.
In the mean time, do you want Democrats to tie one hand around their back by not taking advantage of the rules that exist to raise money as freely as Republicans cheerfully do? Did you miss the part about how Trump has also been pushing the limits of these rules?
And to go back to the original point, weren't you saying that Clinton is "the most openly corrupt female politician in history"? And yet the first sentence of your reference goes: "The fact that political candidates are closely coordinating with friendly Super PACs — making a mockery of a central tenet of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision — is one of the biggest open secrets in Washington."
Quote
A candidate can skirt and exploit the law and still be morally reprehensible and unfit for office.
Sure, but then you have to provide evidence to support that. If you claim "This is illegal" and then you provide a bunch of examples that aren't actually illegal... well, you're not strengthening your case.
Post by: cat on 10 Nov 2016, 19:46
Reality check: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656
This is terrible :~(
Post by: Scavenger on 10 Nov 2016, 19:49
But there were like two or three other candidates?
Why choose the lesser of two evils when there are candidates that aren't evil?
Oh, don't worry, Johnson is pretty evil, being a libertarian against welfare, and his global warming manifesto was "the earth will be consumed by the sun".
Jill Stein constantly courts antivaxxers and wants to implement homeopathy and junk as the health care system.
So yeah, Clinton was the lesser of four evils, not two.
On the one hand everyone is being told that they should always vote, because no matter how insignificant a vote may seem, it can still help.
Yet on the other hand, everyone is also being told to never vote for a third party because that's just throwing your vote away.
WHICH ONE IS IT!!! >:(
Its both. Because of the way the system works, a vote for not Clinton us a vote for Trump, since third parties rarely have enough local support across the board to win enough electoral college votes, and we saw this time that Trump took Florida simply by virtue of Clinton not having those few extra votes that went to Johnson. But every vote does count... If you are voting for the two main parties.
The system is broken as hell and needs repairing, but that's the gist of it. Voting for anyone not in the main two parties usually favors the republicans.
That said, I don't wholly blame third party voters. That blame is squarely on Trump voters, who managed to look past reams and reams of murderous rhetoric and think "he's still the candidate for me!"
Post by: Snarky on 10 Nov 2016, 19:54
Is Clinton evil? Maybe. But she's certainly the lesser of 2 evils. That's worth something.But there were like two or three other candidates?
Why choose the lesser of two evils when there are candidates that aren't evil?
Evil or not, the two other main candidates were blatantly unqualified to be president and ran on idiotic platforms. John Oliver provides an amusing version of the criticism:
[embed=640,360]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU[/embed]
Also, as Radiant says, the American electoral system is set up in such a way that you can't have more than two major parties (and hence, under normal circumstances, viable candidates). This is actually not about the electoral college, though, but the first-past-the-post vote and the fact that the executive is embodied in a single person (the president), "directly" elected by the people. Under such a system, a third candidate will always act as a spoiler for whichever of the two leading candidates they are closest to politically, and most sympathizers will go with the more popular candidate in order to avoid splitting the vote.
Post by: Danvzare on 10 Nov 2016, 20:08
Oh, don't worry, Johnson is pretty evil, being a libertarian against welfare, and his global warming manifesto was "the earth will be consumed by the sun".(laugh) Ha ha, oh that made my day.
Jill Stein constantly courts antivaxxers and wants to implement homeopathy and junk as the health care system.
So yeah, Clinton was the lesser of four evils, not two.
America was screwed in every respect. (laugh)
Because of the way the system works, a vote for not Clinton us a vote for TrumpCouldn't it just as equally be said that a vote for not Trump is a vote for Clinton?
Which in turn would sort of balance it out?
Whose to say all those people who voted for Johnson, didn't prefer Trump over Clinton?
Post by: dactylopus on 10 Nov 2016, 20:15
That said, I don't wholly blame third party voters. That blame is squarely on Trump voters, who managed to look past reams and reams of murderous rhetoric and think "he's still the candidate for me!"
That's a very optimistic view. I don't think they were overlooking his rhetoric. I think these people agree with it all. There is more bigotry and hatred in America than most people realize, and now it is being exposed. Trump is the champion for the lowest common denominator, which is a very large group. That's why it scares me. It shows me how many Trumps there are in the country. It shows how many think and feel and act as he does. It exposes the monsters.
I'd say Jill Stein was close to being a good choice. Her politics were the closest to Bernie's, and his were the closest to mine, but she definitely has her share of issues as well.
And the Electoral College is a really broken system. I'm not sure it's even relevant anymore.
Couldn't it just as equally be said that a vote for not Trump is a vote for Clinton?
Which in turn would sort of balance it out?
Whose to say all those people who voted for Johnson, didn't prefer Trump over Clinton?
If there are essentially 2 sides (and there are), then Johnson is the Conservative (Republican) and Stein is the Liberal (Democrat). So a vote for Johnson could have been a vote for Trump (more likely), and a vote for Stein could have been a vote for Clinton (more likely). I doubt any Stein supporters would have otherwise voted Trump, and vice versa.
Evil or not, the two other main candidates were blatantly unqualified to be president and ran on idiotic platforms. John Oliver provides an amusing version of the criticism:
Great video, thanks for posting.
Post by: Jack on 10 Nov 2016, 22:09
‘Die Whites Die': Anti-Trump Rioters Vandalize NOLA Monuments (http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/10/die-whites-die-anti-trump-rioters-vandalize-nola-monuments/)
‘You Voted Trump!' Shock Video Shows White Man Viciously Beaten in Chicago After Election (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/10/you-voted-trump-shock-video/)
Video as yet not taken down by youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnQNFBHHs6w).
In the lead-up to the election I was sure hillary was the globalist favourite, the one that was supposed to win. I was sure there might be a civil war right after, if she wins. Now on the other side of the hill, I'm wondering if trump was not the one that was supposed to win all along. He is the first ironically elected president in history.
Maybe it never mattered who won. Hillary or not, this is going to tear the country apart, which will destabilise the world even further. There won't be time for executive changes to give people jobs, if that's even possible at this point. It seems to be happening right now.
Civil war.
Post by: Scavenger on 10 Nov 2016, 22:17
That's a very optimistic view. I don't think they were overlooking his rhetoric. I think these people agree with it all. There is more bigotry and hatred in America than most people realize, and now it is being exposed. Trump is the champion for the lowest common denominator, which is a very large group. That's why it scares me. It shows me how many Trumps there are in the country. It shows how many think and feel and act as he does. It exposes the monsters.
Yeah, I really should have said "look at reams and reams of murderous rhetoric". A vote for Trump is definitely a vote for that kind of bigotry coming back into style, and if not by legislation, the resident brownshirts will start with the violence and the hate crimes, like Radiant linked to.
I do hope that any Trump supporters here come to their senses, and see the pandora's box they've opened, because I have zero sympathy for them if they don't try to oust him and stop the bigotry. Because if they don't, this will empower other fascists in other nations, and a lot of vulnerable people will die, and then we'll probably run out of resources and ruin our environment because Trump appointed a climate change skeptic to look after it.
I mean, sure Hillary wasn't perfect, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also Jack, violent rebellion against an oppressive system out of desperation is not the same as state sanctioned white supremacist thuggery. The fault here lies entirely with the white establishment trying to kick down at everyone else. Trump was boasting about the systematic exile of non-white people and the registration and exile of muslim people (which he still plans to do and people voted for that). That's more violent than any individual account of a black person beating up a white person.
Post by: Mandle on 10 Nov 2016, 22:48
This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.
We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!
Now that it turns out that Hillary won the popular vote and the only reason Trump won the election is because of the electoral college system, shouldn't he be standing by his words and stepping aside to allow the "real" winner to take her place?
What a disgusting hypocrit that he can just be all smiles and speeches after having "won" via a system he himself said was a travesty of democracy.
Post by: Adeel on 10 Nov 2016, 22:55
My cousin-in-law is a practising Muslim (he also sports a beard). My cousin is also a practising Muslim (she wears the hijab). And both are first-generation immigrants. I don't know about my cousin, but my cousin-in-law voted for Trump. And I know this because of his FB post. I didn't ask him why, though.
Now, I wonder why would immigrants (Muslims or Non-Muslims) vote for Trump?
Post by: Jack on 10 Nov 2016, 23:27
:-D
Also Jack, violent rebellion against an oppressive system out of desperation is not the same as state sanctioned white supremacist thuggery. The fault here lies entirely with the white establishment trying to kick down at everyone else. Trump was boasting about the systematic exile of non-white people and the registration and exile of muslim people (which he still plans to do and people voted for that). That's more violent than any individual account of a black person beating up a white person.
You're right about one thing. They're desperate. For the same reasons that some trump supporters want to deport all immigrants. They have no jobs.
I wasn't judging. Black communities were protesting all over the US before trump became president. It was their protests and riots which initially led me to predict civil war in america (weeks ago). Now I'm thinking of all the bad apples in the police forces of the US who will use the election as a license to kill. And the media who will be all the more eager to stoke the fires now that they can put a leftist spin on it. It has the potential to get out of hand very quickly.
Post by: Stupot on 11 Nov 2016, 00:03
You really don't know why so many women voted for trump?I personally don't, either. Could you please teach me?
:-D
Post by: Gurok on 11 Nov 2016, 01:09
You really don't know why so many women voted for trump?I personally don't, either. Could you please teach me?
:-D
I heard one reporter say they were voting against Hillary because she, unlike other women heads of state, wouldn't have got there on her own. They feel she'd have got there because she was Bill's wife. I can understand that you wouldn't want the rule to be "any woman can be president as long has her husband is first", but I don't know if it would set a precedent. I think it was also partly an anti-establishment vote. There is nothing special about women that precludes them distrusting the establishment.
Post by: Jack on 11 Nov 2016, 01:39
I personally don't, either. Could you please teach me?
I feel like an ass for being all suggestive now that you asked so nicely. I can't. Not now. It's just another theory anyway.
Post by: Ryan Timothy B on 11 Nov 2016, 02:02
Now, I wonder why would immigrants (Muslims or Non-Muslims) vote for Trump?Because she's a woman.
Post by: LimpingFish on 11 Nov 2016, 02:05
Reality check: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656
See, this is the bigger problem with electing Trump. It legitimizes this type of behavior in the minds of the brain-dead, racist, fuck-wit part of America. All the things they were told were wrong (racism, sexism, homophobia, violence) must actually be a-okay, if the president agrees with you. Similar "Day 1" reports surfaced during the aftermath of Brexit, with elements of white Britain becoming very vocal (http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/postrefracism-this-catalogue-of-racist-abuse-following-brexit-is-terrifying-5968180/) to those they took to be foreign interlopers. In their minds, when they voted for Brexit, it had nothing to do with EU rulings or self-governance. It was about getting the filthy darkies out of their nice, white country.
To anyone who voted for Trump: This is the America you voted for. You can legitimize your reasons for not voting for Clinton, but in the end you pledged your support to a racist bigot, and to an America that's openly hostile to non-whites, women, gay people, Muslims, etc. There's no way around it. This will be your legacy.
Frankly, Clinton could've been sending arms to IS, via a caravan of shoe-less, migrant children, and she still wouldn't have done as much damage as Trump will, regardless of his future actions.
Post by: Snarky on 11 Nov 2016, 07:51
It seems to be happening right now.
Civil war.
Yeah, keep making this prediction. Shows your grasp of US reality.
Take a look back at the sixties and early seventies, where you had the draft sending young people to die in a war they didn't want, civil rights marches, protests and riots, lynchings and other white supremacist violence often supported by state governments, the National Guard sent in to impose government decree that states refused, police riots at the Democratic convention, college occupations and killings of student protesters, explicitly revolutionary groups like the Black Panther Party and communist parties gaining considerable support, groups like the Weathermen conducting anti-government terror campaigns, a list of political assassinations including JFK, MLK, Malcolm X and RFK, and the president implicated in a massive illegal conspiracy and forced to resign. It makes current unrest pale by comparison, yet it'd be a massive stretch to claim the US was on the brink of civil war.
The only scenario in which a civil war is remotely plausible is some constitutional crisis where the legitimacy of the government is in serious question and factions split to take different sides. Admittedly such a scenario becomes orders of magnitude less far-fetched under a President Trump (it all involves Trump doing something that threatens the safety or freedom of the United States, e.g. suspending the Supreme Court or launching nukes, and other parts of government trying to stop him), but it's still immensely unlikely.
Post by: dactylopus on 11 Nov 2016, 07:52
I heard one reporter say they were voting against Hillary because she, unlike other women heads of state, wouldn't have got there on her own. They feel she'd have got there because she was Bill's wife. I can understand that you wouldn't want the rule to be "any woman can be president as long has her husband is first", but I don't know if it would set a precedent. I think it was also partly an anti-establishment vote. There is nothing special about women that precludes them distrusting the establishment.
True, but when your choice is to vote for either the establishment, experienced woman versus the anti-establishment, inexperienced misogynist, one would think there's a clear winner. What's more important to these women? I guess voting against the establishment is more important than their own rights as human beings. I guess voting for a hateful rapist is more important than someone who can actually identify with you and the struggles of all American women.
Post by: Jack on 11 Nov 2016, 11:20
...sixties and early seventies...
(http://www.designsponge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/madman_season7.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCg_9U0WYAAL4D8.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tp-21WKYdqE/VSZVBW0iXGI/AAAAAAABae0/OI0LT0ruq0c/s1600/Demonstrations%2Band%2Bprotests%2Bagainst%2Bthe%2BVietnam%2BWar%2B(2).jpg)
(wrong)
Post by: Danvzare on 11 Nov 2016, 11:45
I think the latter rolls off the tongue so much better.
Ha ha ha! (laugh)Now, I wonder why would immigrants (Muslims or Non-Muslims) vote for Trump?Because she's a woman.
Oh this thread has given me so many laughs already.
Speaking of which, I wonder how everyone would have reacted if Clinton had been elected. Would there have been a Clintonmageddon thread? ???
I seriously wonder how the latest South Park episode would have gone as well.
Post by: Mandle on 11 Nov 2016, 14:28
I remember a survey from some time ago asking american women if they would vote for a female president and, suprisingly, about 60%-70% said they would not...
And the biggest reason given was that they would not trust a woman to run their country.
I remember comments like "I'm a woman and I know I often react emotionally rather than logically when I make many choices, and I would not trust someone doing that to run my country."
I don't know if this way of thinking still applies today amongst 60%-70% of american women, and I'm not saying either that the emotional vs logical thing they were saying is in any way correct...
I'm just quoting from memory of what the survey turned up in it's findings:
At the time of the survey it seemed that a majority of american women would rather place their trust in a male figure of authority...A father figure perhaps? I don't know...
And also:
(http://www.designsponge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/madman_season7.jpg)
Is it just me or:
(http://i67.tinypic.com/dvsmfd.png)
Is that Sheldon and Leonard back in the '70's? Vampires confirmed?
Post by: Adeel on 11 Nov 2016, 16:50
What we know for sure is that many people still voted for the Trump, despite belonging to the the very group(s) which Trump targeted. What we don't know is why they did so. Such is almost always the case with the history: We don't debate on what happened, nor we debate on what people did; instead we debate on what were they thinking at the time when they did (or didn't do) something.
So please, spare me your lame jokes and snide remarks if you don't wish to contribute to the discussion. Not gonna mention the names here, they know who they are.
Post by: dactylopus on 11 Nov 2016, 20:26
See, the problem with the 'intellectuals' here is that they are apparently too intelligent for the lesser intelligent, dumber people like me to even give a straight answer. Perhaps it's too much to ask the honest opinions of the both sides. Or perhaps I'm unable to convey my sincerity to listen to the opinions of the both sides.
What we know for sure is that many people still voted for the Trump, despite belonging to the the very group(s) which Trump targeted. What we don't know is why they did so. Such is almost always the case with the history: We don't debate on what happened, nor we debate on what people did; instead we debate on what were they thinking at the time when they did (or didn't do) something.
So please, spare me your lame jokes and snide remarks if you don't wish to contribute to the discussion. Not gonna mention the names here, they know who they are.
I would personally love to know what misguided reasons Trump supporters had (those that weren't just like him, anyways). I can't think of a valid reason, but I'd love to hear them. I've heard some, and I can't fathom how those reasons make him any less of a terrible choice of the available candidates. Then again, I admittedly see this in black & white.
Post by: Snarky on 11 Nov 2016, 20:28
Post by: RickJ on 11 Nov 2016, 20:50
Post by: Cassiebsg on 11 Nov 2016, 21:06
A little off-topic here, but why was this thread called Trumpmageddon rather than Trumpocalypse?
Continuity of this topic: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=53683.0
And funny enough, we're having the "exact" same discussion now than we did a couple months ago...
Quote from: Radiant
Reality check: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656And that this was unfortunately something I was expecting to see (though hoping to be wrong). :~(
Quote from: Danvzare
I seriously wonder how the latest South Park episode would have gone as well.
Actually I checked the day before the election, and the episode that is now called "Oh Jeez" was called "The first first man" (or something to that effect, clearly indicating that even they were expecting Hillary to win...)
Post by: Adeel on 11 Nov 2016, 21:45
There's one here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/
Read different articles like this. I'd like to know the opinions of the people here.
Post by: Cuiki on 12 Nov 2016, 01:40
Just for the record, I think the guy is a delusional jerk who should never end up becoming president, but what can you do.
I am disappointed to see people using the term SJW on these forums. On the internet, of all places.'Social justice warrior' is a sarcastic expression. Arguing why anyone sees it as a bad thing is like arguing why 'smartass' isn't a compliment. I wanted to reply to this bit earlier, but I didn't want to be labeled as a "racist misogynist" who should strongly reconsider. :tongue:
Social JUSTICE Warrior. If that sounds like a bad thing to you, you should strongly reconsider.
I think this satirical sketch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs), or whatever it may be, could offer an interesting point of view to everyone who's completely baffled by Trump's supporters.
(Be warned though, it's really offensive and full of swearing.)
Post by: Scavenger on 12 Nov 2016, 02:16
Yeah, I'm also kind of surprised at all the political correctness radiating from this thread.
"Political Correctness"? You realise that that phrase has overwhelmingly been used by the extreme/alt right to refer to "treating people like human beings with respect", right? Saying it is using an incredibly loaded term - you'll have to explain what exactly you mean by it. What exactly do you consider "politically correct" in this thread?
'Social justice warrior' is a sarcastic expression. Arguing why anyone sees it as a bad thing is like arguing why 'smartass' isn't a compliment. I wanted to reply to this bit earlier, but I didn't want to be labeled as a "racist misogynist" who should strongly reconsider. :tongue:
Again, "SJW" is used by the extreme/alt right to refer to "anyone left of me". It's also an incredibly loaded term - I've seen it refer to pretty much anyone who says "Hey, maybe we should be accepting of minorities". It's now connected with Social Justice in general, too. So people have been defanging it by just accepting and taking up the label in an ironic manner. Like I'm trying to protect marginalised folk from fascism, I'm clearly a PC SJW.
I've already explained why people would be so angry, to the point of protest, at Trump being elected, and how dangerous it would be to legitimise his presidency, so the original meaning of Social Justice Warrior - someone who uses social justice causes to pick fights, is not really what people mean when they use it anymore. And even then, you have to be careful - what you could consider as just "campaigning for no reason" might actually have a reason you haven't paid attention to.
So, considering the context in which these phrases are used in the current political climate, maybe it isn't too wise to bandy them about. They are INCREDIBLY politically charged, and wrapped up in so much... stuff... that it's difficult to discern what someone means when they use it. You just have to be clearer and not use the fancy catchphrases.
Post by: Cuiki on 12 Nov 2016, 02:59
I agree it's a shame that political correctness and SJW came to mean what they mean today, and I probably shouldn't be using these terms so casually. It's just that I think it's hard for a number of people to keep track of what's okay to say and think and what isn't, and they can get frustrated to the point where they're altogether put off defending a cause they might have defended in the past.
What I meant by political correctness, personally, was things like Ali saying that Jack shouldn't use the word female when refering to Hillary being corrupt. I mean, I get it's a label, and her gender shouldn't have anything to do with being corrupt, but from a pragmatic point of view, someone who demonizes such labeling could do more harm than someone who casually uses it. Don't get me wrong Ali, I am definitely on your side in the bigger picture, but maybe it's not just people like me who should be more careful with their words.
Post by: RickJ on 12 Nov 2016, 03:09
[edit] and here a comment from the above video
Quote
BigGScotland1 day ago
I was genuinely scared a few months back about a Donald Trump presidency and what it would mean for the world. That was until I thought to myself "Why the fuck am I scared, I have no idea what the guy stands for and haven't heard him speak other than what the media has shown me". So that night I started doing research and was blown away that he stood for many things I agreed with and that the media's golden girl was utterly corrupt. The media and Hollywood have obviously took over these people's minds with Trump hate and they are too stubborn to accept that he might actually be good for America. I know I'm Scottish so I shouldn't really comment but that's just my view of the situation.
Post by: Scavenger on 12 Nov 2016, 03:53
I'm sorry, Scavenger. I kind of wanted to specifically mention none of this was directed at you. I hope you're doing alright, wherever you are right now.
It's fine, I just wanted to make sure you were making yourself clear, especially with something as delicate as this. I'm not angry at you or anything!
Well here's a link that should explain some things. He's got an English accent so what he says must be true :-D. Have fun and hysteria watching.
Could we get why you voted in your own words, and why you thought that throwing all of us under the bus was worth it? I don't want to sit through yet another snide white british antifeminist ranter's meanderings. And honestly, it's not making your case to link to a guy who has like "CRAZY FEMINIST BLOWN THE FUCK OUT" and "THIS IS WHAT A SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR LOOKS LIKE" with a thumbnail of a fat lady as most of his videos. Like, joy, the use of stereotypes is alive and well in that guy.
Post by: Radiant on 12 Nov 2016, 09:23
I think this satirical sketch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs), or whatever it may be, could offer an interesting point of view to everyone who's completely baffled by Trump's supporters.
(Be warned though, it's really offensive and full of swearing.)
I endorse this video.
Post by: Grim on 12 Nov 2016, 11:10
Well here's a link that should explain some things. He's got an English accent so what he says must be true :-D. Have fun and hysteria watching.
I've followed that channel for a while now. I agree 100% with what he says about Trump, and on most other topics (islam...). I'm not American, obviously, so it's not my say, but clearly Trump has won because people of America have voted for him. That's how democracy works. End of story.
Post by: Atelier on 12 Nov 2016, 11:21
Again, "SJW" is used by the extreme/alt right to refer to "anyone left of me".
Seriously? The way I have been using it refers to someone who takes up any old liberal cause for their own self-satisfaction, rather than actually engaging or thinking about the issues properly. That is literally the definition and I personally know many people who it suits (invariably young, white middle-class people like me). I am not 'alt right' because I doubt the sincerity and permanency of some people's so-say convictions. Instead I've been sworn at and been called extreme right, it's quite ironic. Oh, and how about we say "alt right" is used by SJWs to refer to "anyone right of me".
Again, my comments were off-topic so please let's not get hung up on it here.
So Trump has announced that he will keep some key provisions of Obamacare and there won't be a wholesale repeal. Which brings me back to my point that what Trump said on the campaign trail isn't solely how we should judge how his presidency will actually turn out. He's a liar, he contradicts himself, he's bizarre - in practice what he said off the top of his head at a podium will be ameliorated by the realities of office.
Post by: Radiant on 12 Nov 2016, 11:30
Well here's a link that should explain some things. He's got an English accent so what he says must be true :-D. Have fun and hysteria watching.
Also an insightful view. It strikes me that a vocal number of people from both sides support democracy only as long as their side wins. This whole us-against-them mentality is the actual problem here; do all two-party systems get to that eventually? People have been saying for awhile that the election system itself needs to change. I think the last time we saw such a change is when presidents were limited to two terms, about a century ago, so I don't have high hopes of such a change happening the next four years. That said, clearly a number of trump supporters are hoping for him to change the system, and he strikes me as more likely to actually do so than hillary. No guarantees though.
Post by: Snarky on 12 Nov 2016, 11:45
So Trump has announced that he will keep some key provisions of Obamacare and there won't be a wholesale repeal.
Called it:
"Obamacare" is only partially abolished, but millions of Americans do lose their health care.
(We'll see about the second part, obviously, but I think Congress will feel committed to repealing some of the central parts of the law. If they just tweak it to fix some of the flaws – like Democrats have been pushing for FOR YEARS – and take the credit for the new and improved version, that would be politically galling, but at least the outcome would be happy.)
Of course, given that he's reversed himself multiple times on almost every matter of policy, this new statement is worth practically nothing in itself. Let's see what he actually does.
Post by: on 12 Nov 2016, 12:37
(strong language BTW, maybe NSFW)
[embed=600,400]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs[/embed]
Anyway, looks like the mass hysteria has passed (just) and now some of the more serious and intelligent debate is finding its way through. Well, in dribs and drabs, but it's there (and here) in some capacity now at least...!
Post by: Problem on 12 Nov 2016, 13:12
About SJW: While there may be people who fall into this category, most of time I have seen the term used to devalue other people's opinions. To stop a debate. I see it mainly used by people who could be called SJWW (social justice warrior warrior, some people have that as a hobby). If someone stands up for women's rights and racial equality I don't f*cking care if this is done for self-satisfaction. Call this person a SJW, but it is still a hundred times better than standing up for the opposite of these values. It's a ridiculous term.
Post by: Mandle on 12 Nov 2016, 13:14
That video was amazing on so many levels...
The way he speaks his case without his eyes ducking over to slightly off-camera cue-cards, and way the whole thing is filmed as if it was actually an impromtu video, and yet not quite considering the professional camera work and audio quality...
But especially for what he really says.
It's a powerful video, very well acted and produced.
Post by: Jack on 12 Nov 2016, 13:43
About SJW: While there may be people who fall into this category, most of time I have seen the term used to devalue other people's opinions. To stop a debate. I see it mainly used by people who could be called SJWW (social justice warrior warrior, some people have that as a hobby). If someone stands up for women's rights and racial equality I don't f*cking care if this is done for self-satisfaction. Call this person a SJW, but it is still a hundred times better than standing up for the opposite of these values. It's a ridiculous term.
There are people that take "social justice" too far, such as advocating censorship to protect people's feelings, or just their image. They want the people they're advocating for to be treated like children, and sheltered even more than that. That's BS, and should be called out. Mainstream feminism is rife with this kind of behaviour, and it's often males perpetrating it. This in my opinion is just another way to subject women to what they find culturally acceptable behaviour.
Post by: Khris on 12 Nov 2016, 14:55
It's true that a small but vocal part of liberals went way overboard with PC, but I also think that lots of conservative voters were just as appalled by the sheer amount of hate that was displayed by trump supporters online and at the rallies.
I'd love to see some numbers.
I find this article to make a much more compelling case for why people voted for trump: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
(My personal opinion about Trump is that he is uniquely unfit to hold a higher office of any sort, even disregarding his contempt for anybody who isn't white, male and rich.)
Post by: Crimson Wizard on 12 Nov 2016, 15:58
I find this article to make a much more compelling case for why people voted for trump: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
I find it... sad ...that someone has to explain things like that, but apparently many people just disregard this as non-important, or something they do not give a f*** about. That's actually a root of the problem, in my opinion. Regardless of whether you are sympathetic or disliking to those people (IDK how you would label them - poor, rural, "culturaly-atavistic", or with some other contemporary term that I am not aware of), they are real, they exist, and you have to deal with them, their presence and their opinion (when they express it), this way or another. The way of dealing with those who politically or culturally oppose you - is the main question.
Would you ignore them all the time - until they remind about themselves? Or try to help and educate (is not that what government and social organization supposed to do?)? Or, heck, maybe you just put them in concentration camps where they would not bother you with their savagery anymore (sometimes I feel like certain political activists would rather do this)? or else.
I did not really want to post here, because I do not think that's really my business, and I know almost nothing about Trump, Hillary Clinton, or internal situation of USA. Also being rather non-social person I often miss new trends until they are like 5-10 years old (for example, I learnt about "social justice warriors" only about month ago - no kidding here). But reading this thread made me awfully surprised.
Suprised in both bad and funny way. I think what LimpingFish posted here (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=54140.msg636547531#msg636547531) is basically how I feel.
You see, one of the big reasons why liberal opposition is not very popular in Russia is them being openly disdainful to the people who do not share their views. It is not an uncommon thing for some "liberal guy" to make a post in facebook suggesting to cancel voting rights for old people, because their generation prevents progress (or something along those lines). Naturally, with them saying things like that, even folk with generally liberal views would refuse to tag along. Which in turn makes them even more angry and agitated, proclaiming everyone "genetic slaves", "Putin's servants", etc.
There was a time when I was younger, impudent, and very "openly anti-putinist" (I just like playing with words ;)). And although I considered myself rather "socialist" than "liberal", I was wondering what would it like if a "REAL" liberal leader would emerge, who would at least have enough respect and common sense to not have such attitude towards common people. I mean, I genuinely and naively believed that this is just how our domestic self-appointed liberals behave.
Welp...
Post by: RickJ on 12 Nov 2016, 17:14
Quote
I did not really want to post here, because I do not think that's really my business, and I know almost nothing about Trump, Hillary Clinton, or internal situation of USAIt's difficult if not impossible to understand the internal politics of another country beyond a superficial level. It's naive and foolish to believe and behave otherwise.
Quote
You see, one of the big reasons why liberal opposition is not very popular in Russia is them being openly disdainful to the people who do not share their views.
I couldn't agree more. I've lived and worked in a number of different countries and met people from all walks of life. I've found that there is something interesting to be learned from everyone you meet if only you take the time to listen and to think. I have great respect and admiration for these people and I am deeply offended by liberal/progressive people with self-righteous condescending attitudes and their own unique form of bigotry and who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves.
Post by: Ali on 12 Nov 2016, 18:14
What I meant by political correctness, personally, was things like Ali saying that Jack shouldn't use the word female when refering to Hillary being corrupt. I mean, I get it's a label, and her gender shouldn't have anything to do with being corrupt, but from a pragmatic point of view, someone who demonizes such labeling could do more harm than someone who casually uses it. Don't get me wrong Ali, I am definitely on your side in the bigger picture, but maybe it's not just people like me who should be more careful with their words.
I'm all for being polite and trying to understand other people's views, although my intemperate post is not the best example of that. But the left and Jonathan Pie are beating themselves up for demonising Trump supporters. The names we used, the labels we threw around are to blame for his victory.
I don't think Trump supporters are all evil, but there's this idea that 60 million people can't be racist, can't be sexist, can't be homophobic. 60 million people CAN be all those things. Anyone can, it's very easy. I've been guilty of each of them, to my shame.
But if we can't name bigotry for fear of causing offence, for fear of 'labelling' someone, then where does that get us? How does it help the left to tiptoe around the feelings of people who want to BE racist, but don't want to be CALLED racist? Millions of people decided that they were prepared to at least *tolerate* Trump's racism.
Perhaps articles which call racist people racist should have a 'label' warning at the top to prevent anyone from getting *labelled*.
Post by: Cuiki on 12 Nov 2016, 19:54
But the left and Jonathan Pie are beating themselves up for demonising Trump supporters. The names we used, the labels we threw around are to blame for his victory.I didn't think that was about labels at all. More like our unwillingness to look out of our ivory towers and even acknowledge the idea that there could be actual reasons for someone being racist, or anything else that we consider inherently wrong.
Or as he puts it: 'We don't debate anymore because the left won the cultural war'.
But if we can't name bigotry for fear of causing offence, for fear of 'labelling' someone, then where does that get us?That was supposed to be my line. :P
It was you who said that Jack should not refer to (= label) Hillary as female in such a context. I'd say being female is a rather noticeable trait, and still very much ingrained in our culture, whether you like it or not. It's also kind of noteworthy, especially considering no female has ever been a US president before. It wouldn't be bad to leave the word out, but it's not so bad to use it either. It's just so utterly irrelevant, if you ask me. It won't change anyone's opinion on women's level of corruption in general.They insisted on lifting up the most openly corrupt female politician in history.The key word in this sentence is 'female'.
Besides, maybe Jack implicitly tried to argue that Hillary was set up as a candidate because she was a woman, which the DNC thought would get her extra political points from the "PC crew". But no, you decided that his use of the word is somehow bad, and that he "absolutely should remove the word female from that sentence".
That said, I feel bad for singling you out like that and droning on about this particular example. I think this passage makes for a worse case of accidental bigotry in this thread:
True, but when your choice is to vote for either the establishment, experienced woman versus the anti-establishment, inexperienced misogynist, one would think there's a clear winner. What's more important to these women? I guess voting against the establishment is more important than their own rights as human beings. I guess voting for a hateful rapist is more important than someone who can actually identify with you and the struggles of all American women.Yeah, that should teach these stupid women! 8-)
Post by: Ali on 12 Nov 2016, 20:07
The vast majority of politicians in history are men, and all the people who've held the office of President are men. Clinton should be compared to them. By comparing Clinton to other female politicians, rather than other politicians, he was holding her to a different, in this case higher, standard because of her sex. That is a sexist thing to do. He should try to make his argument without relying on implicit prejudices.
I don't mind you singling me out, but I don't see anything bigoted in dactylopus's quote.
Post by: RickJ on 12 Nov 2016, 21:13
Post by: Scavenger on 12 Nov 2016, 21:30
I am deeply offended by liberal/progressive people with self-righteous condescending attitudes and their own unique form of bigotry and who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves.
Okay, examples of this "unique bigotry" that made you vote for Trump please? What you said is not enough information to really understand where you are coming from.
I don't care that Jack 'labelled' Clinton female - she is female. I object to him calling her the "most openly corrupt female politician in history."
Yeah, the insertion of female in there changes the context of the sentence entirely, since we are now comparing "female politicians",and not politicians x3 Its not even about being politically correct, but just regularly correct, if Jack had meant to compare her to all politicians.
Post by: Ali on 12 Nov 2016, 21:39
Post by: Adeel on 12 Nov 2016, 21:54
Yet you refuse to give your insight and berate those who sincerely ask for the opinion with your condescending attitude. While you weren't the only person I had in my mind when I wrote my previous post here, I'll ask you directly this time:QuoteI did not really want to post here, because I do not think that's really my business, and I know almost nothing about Trump, Hillary Clinton, or internal situation of USAIt's difficult if not impossible to understand the internal politics of another country beyond a superficial level. It's naive and foolish to believe and behave otherwise.
Enlighten me, in your own words, why would people still vote for Trump despite belonging to the very same group(s) which he targeted during his campaign?
I really wish US was 'just another country', btw. But USA directly and/or indirectly has a big influence on my country (and on the world), so you can't really blame me for being curious.
Post by: Jack on 12 Nov 2016, 23:58
By comparing Clinton to other female politicians, rather than other politicians, he was holding her to a different, in this case higher, standard because of her sex. That is a sexist thing to do.
Only because that "higher standard" allowed the exclusion of people like jacob zuma, who is widely believed to be guilty of rape, and known to be as crooked as they come.
Speaking of, I hear sam jackson is coming to live in south africa. He's going to love jz.
Post by: Cuiki on 13 Nov 2016, 12:21
I don't care that Jack 'labelled' Clinton female - she is female. I object to him calling her the "most openly corrupt female politician in history."
Yeah, the insertion of female in there changes the context of the sentence entirely, since we are now comparing "female politicians",and not politicians x3 Its not even about being politically correct, but just regularly correct, if Jack had meant to compare her to all politicians.
I can agree with that, but I don't think we're talking about the same things here.
She is widely regarded as corrupt, and she is a woman. It doesn't matter so much how corrupt she is on a greater scale of things, it's just that she's a bad choice for a candidate, and her being a woman doesn't help the cause for women empowerment but rather hinders it. Why would women want to be represented by a female who's considered corrupt in the first place when there are other female politicians out there who are considered less corrupt than her? Okay, I know that a lot of Hillary hate stemmed from right-wing propaganda, but that's still the picture a lot of the people were seeing as reality, and they voted accordingly.
But anyway, it doesn't really matter. I'm just nitpicking at semantics and pragmatics here.
I don't mind you singling me out, but I don't see anything bigoted in dactylopus's quote.
Maybe bigotry wasn't the best expression, but I think it's a bit of an arrogant proposition to expect all women should follow this line of thought where they have to act offended by someone who gives sexist remarks. Okay, I acknowledge you can rightfully get offended by things like that, and you can get fucking pissed off when it affects you personally, but then don't get upset when somebody else doesn't. It's not the only way to look at the world, and some people simply feel like they have more important things to do in their life than fight for ideologies that don't affect them.
Post by: Ali on 13 Nov 2016, 13:08
If a woman is "widely regarded" as being corrupt, when she's no more corrupt than the next man, there's a good chance that misogyny has a hand in it. I have no idea what Zuma or Samuel L. Jackson have to do with this.
Post by: Jack on 13 Nov 2016, 14:06
If a woman is "widely regarded" as being corrupt, when she's no more corrupt than the next man, there's a good chance that misogyny has a hand in it.
Even if that were true, "good chance" is not a "100% chance", making a summary judgement on the use of the word incorrect at least some of the time. That's not true of course. Even if everyone is at least as corrupt as she is, there are documents proving it in her case. For most politicians an accusation of corruption is speculation, for her it's a certainty.
If you truly believe she's no more corrupt than the next man, then what makes her a better choice than the next man? The fact that she can "can actually identify with [women] and the struggles of all American women"?
You're the sexist. You're the one giving her preferential treatment because of her gender.
(I'll remind you that if trump is as corrupt as hillary (certainly not impossible) then his entire campaign, which was based on an appeal to the public, not saudi arabia or qatar, would have no bearing on his presidency. If they are all equally corrupt then they are all equally fit to hold office)
Post by: Ali on 13 Nov 2016, 14:29
Post by: Jack on 13 Nov 2016, 14:33
And no, that's still sexism towards women. Most mainstream feminists are sexist toward women. Affirmative action is racist. Positive bias is still bias. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Post by: Ali on 13 Nov 2016, 14:36
EDIT: And in case a mod feels like this is off topic, I would argue it's not. Many people are living in a fact-free fantasy world, oppressed by evil feminists and tyrannical Black Lives Matter activists, and those people just voted for an orange fascist. It's relevant.
Post by: Jack on 13 Nov 2016, 14:50
Anyway, I've made my point. I'll not gain anything by arguing with a self-identified -ist.
Post by: Stupot on 13 Nov 2016, 15:01
Post by: Adeel on 13 Nov 2016, 15:12
Now that Trump has made some U-turns already, how about some more (perhaps amended) predictions?(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/32/97/24/329724a7c80110c8806f67ebed564190.jpg)
:grin:
Post by: Ryan Timothy B on 14 Nov 2016, 01:01
I've watched dozens and dozens of Obama speeches and the man sounds like a genius. Even Hillary sounded as though she knew the ins and outs of politics - the so-called verbal reach arounds required to keep peace and to make deals with other nations. Trump doesn't know any of this. All he knew and all he stood for was hate. Hatred towards Obama, hatred towards Hillary, hatred towards USA. As if the voters all agreed: "I can really stand by this guy - he shares the same hatred as me"
Even when he spoke of businesses taking their production factories to other countries, he never offered any solutions. It was like his campaign was filled with statements as blank as "stubbing your toe hurts" and people would cheer because he knows of the problems people are facing - but they would dismiss that he wouldn't offer any solutions.
All he focuses on in his debates and rallies, other than hatred, is jerking off his persona of being successful and rich. I got tired of hearing him talk about how much money he claims to have. Or how many properties. Non of that was pertinent to his running for presidency, yet he would get standing ovations as though he just announced the solution to world peace. I simply don't understand the appeal.
Sorry I am missing the joke. I certainly didn't mean to imply it was the only reason.Ha ha ha! (laugh)Now, I wonder why would immigrants (Muslims or Non-Muslims) vote for Trump?Because she's a woman.
Oh this thread has given me so many laughs already.
It was an observation from when I worked 6 years in a sawmill with mostly Indian and Pakistani immigrants. It was a big family values company which hired both husband's and wives and quite often I would observe a very inferior approach to how the women acted with men and their husbands. The husbands always drove. The husband often always walked in front of the wife. Even at times these women would step out of the way in hallways etc to let me walk ahead of them - which was the most awkward feeling ever. I also felt they would avoid eye contact. This observation could definitely be considered stereotyping as I've never been anywhere outside of North America, but it happened nontheless and it felt to me as though these women were inbred since birth with this ideology that men are superior. This behavior was almost non existent in those that immigrated into Canada many years earlier.
Also on my facebook feed, I have this cousin who is married to an American and she is a giant religious nutcase. Lately she's been posting nothing but congratulation posts simply because Trump disagrees with abortion. Nothing else matters to her about either candidate but that one single thing. Based off that, I'd say religion likely also played a big role in why Trump was elected.
Post by: Scavenger on 14 Nov 2016, 02:55
Stephen Bannon, if you don't know, is the head of Brietbart News. Brietbart has consistently courted Neo-Nazis for years, and none of their stories even approach the truth in even the most roundabout way. They constantly witchhunt, it's virulently racist and sexist, homophobic and transphobic, not to mention, most importantly, the ANTI-SEMETISM. Like literal nazi shit. He might as well have people from The Daily Stormer as his propagandist. Look at the headlines Bannon's newspaper uses (Major content warning for lots of bigoted headlines):
How do Trump voters reconcile this? Every decision Trump has made in appointing his cabinet has been increasingly awful, and how the fuck are we supposed to feel?
Also, he's already complaining about living in the White House, and how many days a week he has to be president. What kind of president is he even trying to be? Hillary Clinton could have been the First Female President, Trump's trying to line up to be the Worst Male President.
Post by: Babar on 14 Nov 2016, 07:17
Judging from his reaction, I get the feeling Adeel thought you were being non-serious with your response.Sorry I am missing the joke. I certainly didn't mean to imply it was the only reason.Ha ha ha! (laugh)Now, I wonder why would immigrants (Muslims or Non-Muslims) vote for Trump?Because she's a woman.
Oh this thread has given me so many laughs already.
It was an observation from when I worked 6 years in a sawmill with mostly Indian and Pakistani immigrants.
While there's no doubt that there are issues with misogyny there (notwithstanding cultural differences like eye contact being considered aggressive and confrontational rather than an indication of trustworthiness and warmth), I'm not sure that'd be a valid reason to not vote Hillary, considering that Pakistan elected the first female head of a Muslim majority country twice (first time almost 30 years ago), and while I don't know the politics of Adeel's family, he is in her (party's) stronghold city.
Post by: Jack on 14 Nov 2016, 11:40
...and none of their stories even approach the truth in even the most roundabout way.
This is a lie.
Some recent links as an example:
Kellyanne Conway: Obama, Clinton Should Calm Down Anti-Trump Protesters (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/13/kellyanne-conway-obama-clinton-calm-anti-trump-protesters/)
Massive New Zealand Quake Triggers Tsunami, Residents Flee (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/13/massive-new-zealand-quake-triggers-tsunami-residents-flee/)
AP's Pace: Clinton Campaign ‘Laughed' at Bill For Caring About Rural Voters (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/11/13/aps-pace-2/)
Bernie Sanders Fans Mount State Party Challenges (http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/11/13/bernie-sanders-state-party-challenges/)
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg Attacked by Left for Lacking Bias to Help Hillary Win (http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/11/12/facebooks-zuckerberg-attacked-lacking-bias-hillary-clinton-win/)
Watch: Humorless SNL Cold Open Features ‘Hillary' Singing ‘Hallelujah' (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/11/12/watch-humorless-snl-cold-open-features-hillary-singing-hallelujah/)
CNN's Chris Cuomo Claims It's Illegal for the Public to View Hillary Emails Released by WikiLeaks (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/10/17/cnns-chris-cuomo-claims-its-illegal-for-the-public-to-view-hillary-emails-released-by-wikileaks/)
Now imagine how much more effective your post would have been had you just posted the offensive headlines without grossly exaggerating the truth. I would also suggest you consider how much easier it would be for people to take your opinion seriously if you were making a rational argument rather than a clearly emotional reaction.
Post by: Scavenger on 14 Nov 2016, 11:44
I would also suggest you consider how much easier it would be for people to take your opinion seriously if you were making a rational argument rather than a clearly emotional reaction.
Oh, I'm sorry for being emotional when THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES KEEPS APPOINTING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MURDER PEOPLE LIKE ME.
Post by: Ali on 14 Nov 2016, 11:44
Post by: Scavenger on 14 Nov 2016, 11:53
Scavenger should have said: "some of their stories approach the truth in the most roundabout way." Then he wouldn't have been guilty of inflammatory exaggeration of the sort that upsets Breitbart readers so much.
Yeah, I'll revise my fricken sentence then if it'll appease Jack.
"Brietbart's writing contains a very high quantity of falsehoods, and the non-false stories they put up on their website are most likely mere fig leaves so they can have plausible deniability that they just peddle 100% complete bigoted garbage."
Post by: Jack on 14 Nov 2016, 11:57
Post by: Stupot on 14 Nov 2016, 12:07
I nearly said "everybody needs to calm down" but I was worried someone might pick up on my misuse of 'everybody' (roll)
Post by: Scavenger on 14 Nov 2016, 12:08
You completely ignore the fact that Donald Trump has appointed a Neo-Nazi as his propagandist just to poke me about semantics? Like no, not literally every fucking word they publish is false, that's not what's important. Is scoring points against me more important than what I was actually saying?
Excuse me for being emotional, the last time we had Nazis in government, LGBT people and mentally ill people were some of the groups that were put against the wall and shot. I don't want that for anyone, not me, not my friends, not anyone.
Post by: Jack on 14 Nov 2016, 12:14
I'd like to see some proof that trump's appointees intend to murder you.
Or just swear some more and panic. I'm sure that will help.
Post by: Snarky on 14 Nov 2016, 12:20
How dare I point out that you support your beliefs with statements which are 100% false?
Maybe you'd have a leg to stand on if you hadn't done exactly the same thing yourself.
Post by: Stupot on 14 Nov 2016, 12:23
Post by: Scavenger on 14 Nov 2016, 12:38
How dare I point out that you support your beliefs with statements which are 100% false?
I'd like to see some proof that trump's appointees intend to murder you.
Or just swear some more and panic. I'm sure that will help.
Ugh, I didn't mean like, murder me, personally. But people like me. And it never starts with extermination, you gotta work your way up through delegitimation and ostracisation (https://mic.com/articles/31809/ben-carson-compares-homosexuality-to-bestiality-and-pedophilia#.2gkw2NE7G) first. You know, by removing our rights (https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/here-is-mike-pences-questionable-2000-proposal-on-hivaids-fu?utm_term=.yjznXL6Ov#.gh1XxoO40). Making religious freedoms bills (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/indiana-governor-mike-pence-anti-gay-bill_n_6947472.html) that legitimise hate crimes against us. Publish articles that belittle and minimize our pain and make it so that our experience means nothing and state that all our complaints are petty and meaningless, such as "Trannies Whine Over Hilarious Bruce Jenner Billboard". Stop us from functioning in society or being able to move around much. And that's just the LGBT stuff. Against Latinx and Muslim populations, the rhetoric is even more direct and murderous. Like Trump actually saying that he should force Muslims to wear identifying marks, that Mexicans are rapists, that he wants to deport 2 million undocumented immigrants in 4 years, that he wants to stop all Muslims from entering the country.... all direct plays from the Genocide Handbook.
But you know, if you had actually looked into what these people believed instead of trying to figuratively crow that Hillary was figuratively a serpent person from figurative Venus funded by globalist Foosball, if you had one iota of empathy for marginalised people and actually listened to us for once, you'd already know all of this.
Even the word 'literally' hasn't meant 'literally' for like a million years.
I love this little addition the best, it's just perfect.
Post by: Ali on 14 Nov 2016, 12:48
Anyway, I've made my point. I'll not gain anything by arguing with a self-identified -ist.
I was going to leave this, but since you prefer to focus on pedantry than real issues - when did I identify as an "-ist"? I mean I try to be some "-ists" and I try not to be some other "-ists", but I didn't self-identify as any of them in this thread.
But hey, we're all delighted that you're so relaxed about bigotry. That sounds swell.
Post by: Mandle on 14 Nov 2016, 14:10
Let this debate not tear us apart, brothers and sisters!
Remember that the sacred code predicts the second coming of Christ Jones to band us all back together in our darkest hour:
Code: [Select]
if ArmaGeddonS==true
{
cChirstJones.ChangeRoom(AGSForums, AnyWalkOnWaterableArea);
aHallelujah.Play(HighestMount, EternallyRepeat);
oCrucialFix.Visible=true;
}
Amen(d code)!
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 14 Nov 2016, 14:43
I felt so unwelcome.
There was so much hatred leveled at, and assumptions made about, me simply because I lived in the USA and the world hated our President (and, seemingly, all Americans).
It was pretty rough but I stuck around due to my love of adventure games and some of the friendships I'd made.
2008 rolls around and the US elects a president the rest of the world seemed to approve of and suddenly the anti-American sentiment was severely diminished.
Americans might just be alright?
It was a pleasant enough 8 years.
Now here we are... Trump.
Americans are bad again.
I'm not a fan of Trump. He is horrible.
So is Hillary Clinton.
It's easy to say, "if you support Trump you're a racist" and all the other bandwagon fun things to say about those who voted for Trump.
In our current [broken] system so many Americans truly believe (as "they" want them to) that there are only two choices and they're locked into not voting for who you want, but voting who you dislike the least.
I have heard many people say they voted for Trump simply because they couldn't stand the thought of a lying, criminal murderer like Hillary as their president.
I have heard many people say they voted for Clinton simply because they couldn't stand the thought of a misogynist bigot in the oval office.
I know it's hard to accept that you might be wrong about some things but it is entirely possible, in our current system, that people would despise Trump and what he stands for but they vote for him anyway because they despise his opponent more.
So yeah... 60 million people voted for Trump (more voted for Hillary but the electoral put Trump in anyway but I won't go into that).
Let's break that down a little; 60 million out of 324 million people. Roughly 18% of the American population voted for Trump. Less than 1 in 5.
This isn't indicative of systemic racism.
This isn't acceptance of bigotry.
This is indicative of a broken system that used its corruption to fail the American people.
I really hope the hatred and insults I've seen in this thread (from ALL sides) is just "fresh" backlash from the election and that this community can move past this.
I don't judge people based on where they live or who they voted for.
I don't make blanket generalizations about a people/country based on the feelings of a minority of their population.
I don't insult people (or lose a friendship) simply because they have different views from mine.
The behavior I've seen in this thread saddens me.
I hope it changes because I'm rather ashamed of us right now.
I thought we were better than that.
I don't want to feel unwelcome again in a place I've come to care so much about.
Peace.
Post by: Ali on 14 Nov 2016, 15:51
If someone supports a racist, they are behaving in a racist way. I won't write them off as an evil monster and I'll listen to their reasons, but I'm not going to blink at racism.
It's great that you can call for peace and unity, that's what I want too. But people have a right to be afraid of the resurgent far-right. It's not bandwagon-jumping - people are actually frightened of the consequences of the decision that 18% of Americans made and 46.9% didn't try to stop. It's not just about us all having different views, it's about people who are literally in fear for their lives and afraid for their children's futures.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 14 Nov 2016, 16:42
I'd wager Trump supporters would say the exact same thing.
I would say I agree that it is reasonable to judge people based on their actions but only if all aspects of why they took the actions they did are being considered. Which I don't see represented in this thread.
This is my point.
The over-all sentiment in here seems to be "people voted for Trump, they are either racist/rapist/bigots or they are okay with racist/rapist/bigots".
This is narrow minded.
There are too many factors (in our current voting system) that lead people to the decisions and actions they feel forced to make.
If somebody holds a gun to your head and says, "vote for Pol Pot or Stalin?" and you have to make a decision and you choose Stalin does that mean you are okay with exterminating your own people?
Of course it doesn't.
Americans are brainwashed into believing they have to pick a side. They must choose a team.
This creates an us versus them mentality. People on team A refuse to listen to anything from team B. There's simply no way the other team has anything to say that I want to hear. I see this same behavior in this thread (leading to my aforementioned sadness).
In this system a horrible person can get elected simply by running against somebody who the population finds even more horrible.
I can understand the outside world's anger (and even agree to some level).
I just feel directing it at the voters, and judging them, is wrong.
The anger should be at the system that allows somebody like Trump or Clinton to be elected in the first place.
Instead of insulting people, why don't we start offering suggestions on how to fix this broken system? Or at the very least express our opinions without all the anger and vitriolic rhetoric? It doesn't help, it just widens the divide even more.
There is so much anger and hatred being thrown at Trump and his supporters in this thread. Trump supporters would throw it right back. You call them idiots, they call you idiots. Rinse and repeat over and over and nobody seems to realize the futility of such nonsense. It's just easier to give in to hate and join in.
Unlike I've seen demonstrated by ALL sides in this election (Americans, non-Americans, Voters/non-Voters, Trump supporters, Hillary supporters) I am willing to concede that I might be wrong. I'm just expressing my opinions and feelings on the matter with no real expectation of changing anybodies' minds.
"Remember that time we talked politics on the internet and you changed your mind?"
- Nobody, Ever
Post by: Problem on 14 Nov 2016, 17:58
Post by: Snarky on 14 Nov 2016, 18:34
Hillary Clinton has many flaws. Both politically and in terms of personal integrity there are plenty of valid criticisms to be made of her. But I do not accept that they are in any way comparable to all the things that make Trump awful. This is not a Pol Pot vs. Stalin situation. It's more like Pol Pot vs. That Boss You Don't Like. The belief that Clinton is a monster and therefore Trump and Clinton are equivalent is the biggest lie of this election. (I think it was FiveThirtyEight who said that this election was less about the "normalization" of Trump than the "denormalization" of Clinton.)
The basis for the "Hillary is horrible" belief seems to rest on three pillars. First, there are the attacks on her character, with claims that she is a criminal, corrupt, dishonest, some even say a murderer. These claims are either groundless or intensely exaggerated, the result of a decades-long propaganda campaign seizing on every misstep (and certainly she has made missteps) generously sprinkled with bald-faced lies to build baroque conspiracy theories and paint a grossly distorted image to serve as a right-wing hate figure. She is the most thoroughly investigated politician of our time (and I believe that to be literally true, not hyperbole), and none of the investigations have ever uncovered any truly serious misdeeds.
Second is the fact that she represents the establishment and the status quo. Unlike the first pillar, this is clearly true. Now you could certainly argue that conventional US policy and politics is "horrible" in one way or another: the influence of lobbyists and big money, the hypocrisy of political expediency, the lack of attention to particular issues, the body count of its foreign policy and the encroachment of civil liberties at home, etc. If you consider "politics as normal" to be so unacceptable that almost anything else would be better, then the view that Hillary is horrible might make some sense. But if so, you really do need to compare Trump to see if he's any different in this regard: blowing up the status quo without even considering what will replace it is the height of irresponsibility. And I think on pretty much every serious issue you could mention (try!), Trump is demonstrably, objectively and obviously no better, and frequently much worse: more unprincipled, more corrupt, more dishonest, more indifferent to how his actions hurt regular people, more inhumane in matters of war, and so on. (The evidence has been repeated over and over, so there's really no excuse for not knowing it.)
The third is the fact that she is pro-choice. For some section of the electorate, all abortion is murder, and the fact that abortion is legal in the US is an atrocity that outweighs all other considerations. Donald Trump (even though he used to be pro-choice and has even refused to say whether he ever helped any of the women he had sex with have an abortion afterwards) at least offers some hope of changing this. OK, fair enough, if you really believe that.
To keep the discussion focused on the issues, I've deliberately omitted one more factor, but I am convinced it is huge, perhaps the greatest of them all: sexism. Throughout her career, Hillary has been distrusted and vilified for being an intelligent, ambitious woman trying to make a difference. This goes back at least to 1981, when Bill Clinton lost reelection as governor of Arkansas in part because Hillary was seen as too outspoken and independent for a governor's wife, as symbolized by the fact that she had kept her own last name, Hillary Rodham, rather than taking his (he was elected again after she did). After decades of this kind of thing, it's almost impossible to separate out the misogyny from the general Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and individual Clinton-haters may have no sexist motive whatsoever, but it has helped keep the hate alive over the years.
Finally, to the bit about "Americans are brainwashed into believing they have to pick a side." Sorry, but for presidential elections you do. The US electoral system guarantees a two-party system, and so in practice you only get a choice between two people. One side or the other. You can certainly work for political change in other arenas (hey, there's hope! the far right just managed it beyond all expectation!), but when it comes down to the presidency you pick one or the other, or abdicate responsibility entirely.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 14 Nov 2016, 19:01
We are humans. Emotions will always play a part (until the robots take over and convert us to mindless worker drones).
Snarky - It might shock you but I agree with you almost entirely. I still find Hillary horrible (for many reasons I have no interest in going into) but I don't feel like your justification for her invalidates any of my points, really. I know you. We've met. I know you're an intelligent guy who doesn't talk out his ass. I respect your right to believe as you do (even if we disagree on some things, which we have!). The only point I'm trying to make is that I'm seeing way too much of "team H versus team T" in here and a stone-walled inability to accept that the other team might have some validity simply because they disagree with A, B and C (even if A, B and C are massive problems for them). I actually think what you wrote helps a lot of what I was saying!
Sure Clinton might be less horrible than Trump but that doesn't mean I support her and it's still a "lesser of two evils" type thing to me.
Is she more fit for office? Yes, undoubtedly.
Is she fit for office? I don't feel she is.
I don't see this as a problem with the people doing the voting.
I see it as a problem with the system they're voting in.
I'm not saddened that people voted for Trump.
I'm not saddened that people voted for Clinton.
I'm saddened that they are forced to pick one or the other.
I'm saddened that every four years we go through the same thing and the machine just keeps spitting out the same results and so few question it and just keep on contributing to this corrupt and broken system.
Do I think hate-crimes will increase?
No, I don't. I think the same hate-crimes will be perpetrated by the same people. The only difference is now the mainstream media (and Clinton supporters) will blame it on Trump instead of focusing on the real issues behind it.
Do I think Trump will renege on his campaign promises?
Of course. Just like pretty much every elected official in the history of humanity. I don't understand why people are surprised by this.
My Facebook feed, in the run-up to the election, was filled with my Clinton supporting friends spreading fear saying how if Trump won the country would be taken over by intolerant people filled with hatred. Well they were right. The day after the election my feed was FILLED with hatred and anger and outright deplorable behavior from Clinton supporters. Wasn't a single gloating or even celebratory post from my Trump supporting friends. Ironic, I suppose.
Both sides are capable of the same thing.
Election cycle after election cycle we go through the same thing. Every four years people rally behind "Politician X" and convince themselves this time it will be different.
It never is and, I doubt, ever will be until we fix the broken wheel.
Post by: Jack on 14 Nov 2016, 19:11
To get back to the topic of predictions, I would say that if trump does start bringing good jobs back to america, prices on pretty much everything will go up. Similar initiatives surrounding Brexit, if successful, will have the same result. The truth is that everyone in the western world has become hooked on goods produced by people who live and work in horrible conditions. It's naturally cheaper for unscrupulous companies to exploit them because they have no rights.
This has to stop, and it's going to come at a price.
Post by: Problem on 14 Nov 2016, 19:23
Problem - The issue I see with your statement is that it relies on each voter voting intelligently, rather than emotionally, which just isn't realistic.
We are humans. Emotions will always play a part (until the robots take over and convert us to mindless worker drones).
That wasn't my point. Of course people don't always vote intelligently. But you make it sound like an excuse - my point is that this is NOT an excuse. You have the right to vote, you have a choice, and you are responsible for what you vote. If you don't inform yourself about the alternatives, or if you vote with your gut instead of your brains, there's no one else to blame but you. You can't blame it on the candidates' personality, you can't blame it on the "system" (though yes, I dislike two party systems myself). By voting, you state your preferences, and if you vote for a xenophobic policy, you can't back out and blame a candidate who offered an alternative.
Post by: Grim on 14 Nov 2016, 19:39
I figured your post would make us all blush from shame, but there are already "buts" and "ifs". Come on, people. It'll be ok. Nothing will change. Every politician ever has been a corrupt piece of shit, we just didn't get a chance to fight about it on social media so it wasn't as interesting as it is now, and the dirt didn't spread around the globe faster than light, so we lived in sweet ignorance.
I think both sides should just let it go. No point in proving that Hilary's friends with Satan now. No point being so sensitive about one's issues in case they get "triggered" - if someone offends you just tell them to fuck off and get on with your life, like we always have. No point getting so wound up about this stuff, though I admit, it's easy to get addicted to politics - in the past I never used to even watch news and you know what? - life was pretty great. These days things happening in my country do upset me... and I wish I didn't follow any of them.
The only way we can make our "enemies" win, is by doing what they want us to do: turn on each other. We are still the same people. Let's not give anyone satisfaction and save the world by simply getting along, can we? ;)
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 14 Nov 2016, 19:48
Quote
That wasn't my point. Of course people don't always vote intelligently. But you make it sound like an excuse - my point is that this is NOT an excuse. You have the right to vote, you have a choice, and you are responsible for what you vote. If you don't inform yourself about the alternatives, or if you vote with your gut instead of your brains, there's no one else to blame but you. You can't blame it on the candidates' personality, you can't blame it on the "system" (though yes, I dislike two party systems myself). By voting, you state your preferences, and if you vote for a xenophobic policy, you can't back out and blame a candidate who offered an alternative.
I am a little confused I must admit. I agree with what you just wrote. I wasn't trying to make voting by emotion an excuse (it's just the reality to my mind).
It would be ideal if everybody voted intelligently.
However this doesn't seem like a solution to me because I wouldn't vote on emotion and my "education" of both candidates made me damn sure I wasn't voting for either of them.
Another thing to consider is that in our current world, information (and more succinctly disinformation), is EVERYWHERE! It's exhausting trying to sort out the fact from the drivel.
I think a lot of people (which the system takes advantage of) just give up.
Some just believe whatever they read, and for others it's too hard to tell what's real and what's viral and what's out-right false.
So in the end they just hitch their horse to a wagon and ride it out.
Human nature seems to direct us to stand behind our choices (even if we have second thoughts) to avoid looking like we made a mistake.
It also seems to dictate the need to insult those with opposing views to make ourselves feel... superior? Or maybe just to convince ourselves we're right?
I read a quote recently that I thought was pretty relevant:
"Sharing links that mock a caricature of the Other Side isn't signaling that we're somehow more informed. It signals that we'd rather be smug assholes than consider alternative views. It signals that we'd much rather show our friends that we're like them, than try to understand those who are not."
Well put, Darth. We all got so much invested in this Trump/Hilary situation, the hate is pouring like poison from both sides exactly the same...
...The only way we can make our "enemies" win, is by doing what they want us to do: turn on each other. We are still the same people. Let's not give anyone satisfaction and save the world by simply getting along, can we?
I'm with you 100%, though my "fuck off" wouldn't be vocalized (nod)
Post by: Scavenger on 14 Nov 2016, 19:51
And somehow I'm supposed to be the bigger person? When minorities are the real losers? Clinton wouldn't have appointed literal Nazis. She was bad, but not "I fear for my life because jackbooted thugs want to destroy me" bad. The dominant intersection can complain of being hated all they want, but if you're not straight, white, cis, neurotypical, or male, you know what real, murderous, systematic hatred is. And anyone complicit in that hatred, anyone who validates it, earns no sympathy from me. They have to admit that what they did was wrong and work to oust this fascist Orange and stamp down the neo nazis, the white supremacists, until they don't have any power anymore.
And now I got people saying that hate crimes won't increase and that its the media's fault for reporting on this? Hate crimes do increase when you validate bigotry, just look at Brexit. A 41% rise. And likely to rise higher now that La Naranja Hinchadaza is in power. Heck, electing him at all is a hate crime,even if it's done out if ignorance.
But, you know, I'm supposed to reach out empathetically to the people that put him in power, even though they have not once even acknowledged that the people currently in power are right this second stripping my people of their rights.
And when someone's opposing view is "Yeah, this guy who will strip minorities of their rights and elect neo nazis was the best option", no, I won't consider it as valid. Don't you even dare try to equate my fear with their hatred.
Post by: Snarky on 14 Nov 2016, 20:07
I'm saddened that every four years we go through the same thing and the machine just keeps spitting out the same results and so few question it and just keep on contributing to this corrupt and broken system.
Election cycle after election cycle we go through the same thing. Every four years people rally behind "Politician X" and convince themselves this time it will be different.
It never is and, I doubt, ever will be until we fix the broken wheel.
But this time IT REALLY HASN'T spat out the same result. That's why everyone's freaking out!
That's why no living president endorsed Trump. That's why he got no major newspaper endorsements apart from by The National Enquirer, his son-in-law's New York Observer and big-time donor Sheldon Adelson's Las Vegas Review-Journal, with papers that have endorsed Republicans for a hundred years going with Clinton. None of this is normal. They are symptoms of the fact that Trump was not just another Republican presidential candidate. If you haven't noticed, this time it really is different.
I was very much not a fan of George W Bush, but I always considered him a "normal" politician, in a way Trump just isn't. And sure, Obama was historic because he was the first black president, but apart from that he was a pretty conventional Democrat: he was never going to revolutionize America. Trump is unprecedented in American politics. It may not be the change you're looking for (I honestly have no sense of what that might be - I can't remember you ever going into detail about the alternative you envision), but you really can't say Trump is more of the same.
I don't in any way expect Trump will fulfill all his campaign promises, but if he has a "normal presidency" I will be astonished.
Quote
Do I think hate-crimes will increase?
No, I don't.
Hate crimes have already increased.
Quote
My Facebook feed, in the run-up to the election, was filled with my Clinton supporting friends spreading fear saying how if Trump won the country would be taken over by intolerant people filled with hatred. Well they were right. The day after the election my feed was FILLED with hatred and anger and outright deplorable behavior from Clinton supporters. Wasn't a single gloating or even celebratory post from my Trump supporting friends. Ironic, I suppose.
Is it at all possible that the fear was about things happening in the real world, not on your Facebook feed?
Post by: Ali on 14 Nov 2016, 20:24
Come on, people. It'll be ok. Nothing will change. Every politician ever has been a corrupt piece of shit, we just didn't get a chance to fight about it on social media so it wasn't as interesting as it is now, and the dirt didn't spread around the globe faster than light, so we lived in sweet ignorance.
I hope you folks who think this is business as usual are right. I will say this though: When students in Nazi Germany held book burnings in universities, what was the international reaction? Presumably revulsion, horror? Fear of what it might foreshadow?
Not really. People thought it was crass, a little uncivilised. A few leftist intellectuals got very wound up, but most newspapers didn't pay it much heed. Business as usual, nothing really changes...
Post by: Jack on 14 Nov 2016, 20:47
The mask drops.
Post by: Danvzare on 14 Nov 2016, 20:49
I hope you folks who think this is business as usual are right. I will say this though: When students in Nazi Germany held book burnings in universities, what was the international reaction? Presumably revulsion, horror? Fear of what it might foreshadow?So considering everyone is treating this like it's the end of the world, newspapers and all, means that there's hope that it isn't all that bad. ;-D
Not really. People thought it was crass, a little uncivilised. A few leftist intellectuals got very wound up, but most newspapers didn't pay it much heed. Business as usual, nothing really changes...
Take what I said with a pinch of salt. I'm on neither side in this debate, I just couldn't pass up on that opportunity. ;)
In my opinion, I think everyone should just wait and see what happens. It's not even been a week yet.
Post by: Ali on 14 Nov 2016, 20:51
So considering everyone is treating this like it's the end of the world, newspapers and all, means that there's hope that it isn't all that bad. ;-D
Yes, this time we're better prepared.
Writer of ‘Taxi Driver,' ‘Raging Bull' Pens Post-Election ‘Call to Violence' (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/11/14/writer-of-taxi-driver-raging-bull-pens-post-election-call-to-violence/)
The mask drops.
That proves it!
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 14 Nov 2016, 20:53
I'm kind of sickened by the repeated calls for empathy for Trump voters, when I've pointed out, again and again, that his administration is stripping people of their rights, validating violent hatred, appointing white supremacists that also advocate violent hatred...
...And when someone's opposing view is "Yeah, this guy who will strip minorities of their rights and elect neo nazis was the best option", no, I won't consider it as valid. Don't you even dare try to equate my fear with their hatred.
It seems you are reacting out of raw emotion. I'm not saying I don't understand why. I get it. I really do. Fear is powerful. I don't think I called for empathy with Trump supporters? I just tried to point out that it's not always an easy black and white decision. I am not saying that your feelings are "wrong" (or right). All I'm saying is if you feel that Trump supporters are your enemy and you lash out at them (as you are in here) there's virtually ZERO chance of any outcome other than continued hatred and, most likely, violence. If you're okay with that so be it. I just see it as the same thing you're accusing them of doing, if from a different angle. Hatred and violence are wrong; regardless of the reasons or motivations behind it. You might feel justified, but so do "they". Again, though, I feel the need to reiterate that you're lumping all Trump supporters together simply because you personally cannot understand why anybody would vote for him. I find it hard to believe that all Trump supporters would bring about the realizations of your fears.
I could be wrong... maybe I'm just naive and the good people I know (who voted Trump) are all closeted bigots that blindly hate as you seem to think. They've just been lying to me for 40 years.
But this time IT REALLY HASN'T spat out the same result. That's why everyone's freaking out!...
...I don't in any way expect Trump will fulfill all his campaign promises, but if he has a "normal presidency" I will be astonished.
Your opinion. I see it as the same old same old.
Two candidates I don't approve of forced on me by a system I don't believe in.
Both sides spend more time insulting the other instead of focusing on what they intend to do.
Some chose Clinton. Some Trump.
Hatred and division as the teams are chosen.
Rinse and repeat.
I, too, would be shocked if this were a normal presidency. On that we can agree. I just don't really worry that things will change that much.
Eight years ago many tried to convince us that muslim Obama was going to bring about Sharia law. I wasn't afraid then, I'm not afraid now.
Hate crimes have already increased.
I suspect this is the case after any election. I really don't have any data to support that. Just a feeling. I suspect that a lot of hate crimes go unreported that will not go unreported when we can blame it on Trump (or Clinton). I also suspect, as I mentioned previously, that so much [dis]information is just accepted 'cause it was on the internet lead to the sense that things are a LOT worse than they really are.
Is it at all possible that the fear was about things happening in the real world, not on your Facebook feed?Come on now... that feels insulting and antagonistic! I was simply pointing to a small example from my corner of the world. I could link to the many articles showing "real world" backlash from Clinton supporters. Just didn't think it was necessary.
If we give in to the hatred and fear "they" win.
We are better than that.
At least I hope we are.
I hope you folks who think this is business as usual are right. I will say this though: When students in Nazi Germany held book burnings in universities, what was the international reaction? Presumably revulsion, horror? Fear of what it might foreshadow?There are, of course, parallels! Again I'm not saying you are wrong in your fears (though I hope you are)! History is loaded with things like this. I like to think that the US isn't repeating pre-WWII Germany. Time will tell I suppose.
Not really. People thought it was crass, a little uncivilised. A few leftist intellectuals got very wound up, but most newspapers didn't pay it much heed. Business as usual, nothing really changes...
I can only hope we don't give in to the fear and love wins in the end.
Cliche I know!
Post by: Scavenger on 14 Nov 2016, 21:42
It seems you are reacting out of raw emotion. I'm not saying I don't understand why. I get it. I really do. Fear is powerful. I don't think I called for empathy with Trump supporters? I just tried to point out that it's not always an easy black and white decision. I am not saying that your feelings are "wrong" (or right). All I'm saying is if you feel that Trump supporters are your enemy and you lash out at them (as you are in here) there's virtually ZERO chance of any outcome other than continued hatred and, most likely, violence. If you're okay with that so be it. I just see it as the same thing you're accusing them of doing, if from a different angle. Hatred and violence are wrong; regardless of the reasons or motivations behind it. You might feel justified, but so do "they". Again, though, I feel the need to reiterate that you're lumping all Trump supporters together simply because you personally cannot understand why anybody would vote for him. I find it hard to believe that all Trump supporters would bring about the realizations of your fears.
I'm saying that if they don't stop supporting him, if they stand by their decision to vote for him and don't try to oust him, they are complicit in his crimes. And of course I'm justified, nobody was systematically trying to strip them of their rights. But you know, because Trump wants to sign FADA (First Amendment Defence Act) (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/09/donald-trump-pledges-sign-anti-lgbtq-first-amendment-defense-act/) into law (a law that would require the repeal of explicit LGBT protections signed into law by Obama), he wants to make it explicitly legal to discriminate against people like me. So, big difference.
Also, you know, voting for bigotry tends to make people who love doing hate crimes more empowered to do em, like when Brexit happened. So, it makes the world an actively more dangerous place for marginalised groups to live in.
Also also, don't equate Clinton and Trump, they are completely not on the same level. One is a pretty sleazy politician, the other is LITERALLY HIRING WHITE SUPREMACISTS.
I could be wrong... maybe I'm just naive and the good people I know (who voted Trump) are all closeted bigots that blindly hate as you seem to think. They've just been lying to me for 40 years.
I didn't say that, either, either they actively supported Trump's bigotry, or were complicit in allowing it because it just wasn't that important to them. Either way, it's still an act of violence, one that needs to be stopped. As soon as they stop being complicit in hatred being levelled against me for who I am, I will stop hating them for what they've done. After all, Queer folk can't stop being queer, but Trump voters can stop supporting homophobia and transphobia in the administration. Black people can't stop being black, but Trump voters can stop supporting white supremacists. Muslims and people who read as Muslims (Sikhs, for instance, get misread as being Muslim all the time) can't stop being who they are, but Trump voters can stop supporting violent islamophobia in the administration.
And yes, this involves backpedalling on their vote for Trump. It involves ousting him. It involves never allowing him to pass a law that would hurt people. It involves stopping him from appointing active bigots to positions of high governmental power. But as long as he's in power, he's going to do awful things, and the people that voted for him have to take responsibility for that and finally fight for love and not hate.
On the other hand, what's my crime? Existing as a hated minority? Why shouldn't I hate the people who voted for violence against me for what they've done?
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 14 Nov 2016, 22:37
I'm saying that if they don't stop supporting him, if they stand by their decision to vote for him and don't try to oust him, they are complicit in his crimes. And of course I'm justified, nobody was systematically trying to strip them of their rights.
Also, you know, voting for bigotry tends to make people who love doing hate crimes more empowered to do em, like when Brexit happened. So, it makes the world an actively more dangerous place for marginalised groups to live in.
I didn't say that, either, either they actively supported Trump's bigotry, or were complicit in allowing it because it just wasn't that important to them. Either way, it's still an act of violence, one that needs to be stopped.
On the other hand, what's my crime? Existing as a hated minority? Why shouldn't I hate the people who voted for violence against me for what they've done?
Scavenger, my friend, I've admired you for years (love your artwork) but you are actually worrying me a bit. I understand your anger, but I really am worried with how you're dealing with it. Responding to hate with hate will bring about nothing but more hate. It isn't going to solve this problem!
Post by: Problem on 14 Nov 2016, 22:41
Post by: Cassiebsg on 14 Nov 2016, 23:03
Quote from: wikipedia
Hitler gained popular support by attacking the Treaty of Versailles and promoting Pan-Germanism, anti-Semitism, and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and Nazi propaganda. Hitler frequently denounced international capitalism and communism as being part of a Jewish conspiracy.
By 1933, the Nazi Party was the largest elected party in the German Reichstag, which led to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. Following fresh elections won by his coalition, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which began the process of transforming the Weimar Republic into Nazi Germany, a one-party dictatorship based on the totalitarian and autocratic ideology of National Socialism.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler (feel free to continue reading where I left off...)
So... Scavenger and all the minorities that Trump actively attacked, should not be worried? Should not be fearful for an uncertain future? Seems like the Jews got the same message back then... "nothing to worry about, move along" :~(
And keep in mind a LOT of people on this world think that the Holocaust never happened! Just a figment of someone's imagination...
But that said, I sure hope, I and everyone who's sincerely worried about this, will be proven wrong.
Post by: Scavenger on 14 Nov 2016, 23:09
So... Scavenger and all the minorities that Trump actively attacked, should not be worried? Should not be fearful for an uncertain future? Seems like the Jews got the same message back then... "nothing to worry about, move along" :~(
Almost word for word, actually.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxEzSCHUsAAraPG.jpg)
Post by: LimpingFish on 14 Nov 2016, 23:42
Hillary Clinton: Benghazi, e-mails, suspected Wall Street shenanigans, lacks a relatable personality, has a lecherous husband.
Donald Trump: Racism, bigotry, sexism, accused rapist/molester, proven liar, highly questionable business practices, history of exploiting his workforce, no experience, blatant cronyism...etc, etc.
Regardless of how they feel about Clinton, on what planet is voting for Trump, yet claiming to not agree with him on most of his opinions/rhetoric, the best option?
They could have voted for Clinton, hung around for four years, and seen what the Republican party had to offer then. I guarantee, if Trump had lost spectacularly, the GOP would have rounded on him and his cronies before his concession speech had the time to pass his lips, and the party as a whole might have gone on to have a major rethink of how to approach choosing future candidates. Better candidates.
But no, a woman who they didn't like, who may or may not have been a bit lax with e-mails, who may or may not have Wall Street on speed-dial, was clearly the worse choice.
Americans have the right to feel disenfranchised with there political system as whole. But instead of changing the system, they've burned it down and salted the earth. If they think that anyone other than rich racist bigots are going to benefit from this presidency, they're sorely mistaken.
And, yes, my opinion of America has dropped. About thirty states worth.
Post by: Ryan Timothy B on 15 Nov 2016, 01:23
And, yes, my opinion of America has dropped. About thirty states worth.I agree. Even though I'm Canadian, I'm still terrified by all of this.
This is my prediction (which I honestly hope I'm wrong about), assuming he actually makes it into the whitehouse before either being assassinated or stepping down: Trump will be known as the worst president in the history of USA
Post by: Snarky on 15 Nov 2016, 08:25
But this time IT REALLY HASN'T spat out the same result. That's why everyone's freaking out!...
...I don't in any way expect Trump will fulfill all his campaign promises, but if he has a "normal presidency" I will be astonished.
Your opinion. I see it as the same old same old.
Two candidates I don't approve of forced on me by a system I don't believe in.
No, it's not just my opinion. It's an objective fact.
That the Speaker of the House refused to campaign for his party's nominee is not "same old same old".
That Trump said his opponent would be in jail if he was president is not "same old same old".
That the sitting president declared the other party's nominee unfit to sit in the Oval Office is not "same old same old".
That the candidates refused to shake hands on the debate stage is not "same old same old".
Again, these are signs, symptoms of how radically different Trump is as a candidate. Every previous president (and I believe all but one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley) previous major-party nominee) has either held prominent elected office or been a military commander before running. Trump is a reality TV star who a couple of years ago was best known to many for his twitter feuds with Rosie O'Donnell.
By no reasonable standard has this been a normal election or a normal outcome. Your attitude is essentially "Fuck it, I don't care about your so-called democracy. Politicians running for president? (Even though this time around one of them was not a politician.) Pshaw! Until you have a giraffe running against my uncle Dave, it's all the same to me."
Post by: Jack on 15 Nov 2016, 11:24
I'm not making excuses for the nazis. What I'm saying is that the rise of hitler was practically engineered.
Again, these are signs, symptoms of how radically different Trump is as a candidate.
You have described in detail the reason that trump appealed to many. He was seen largely as a roll of the dice, where hillary presented the certainty of the status quo. Someone suggested these people just elect hillary and hope there's a better candidate in 4 years? A lot of people were not willing to be bukkake'd with ISDS and the like for the benefit of illegal immigrants and muslims. I'm not saying this is right, it's not what I would have done. But this is how it was for many.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 15 Nov 2016, 13:04
No, it's not just my opinion. It's an objective fact.
That the Speaker of the House refused to campaign for his party's nominee is not "same old same old".
That Trump said his opponent would be in jail if he was president is not "same old same old".
That the sitting president declared the other party's nominee unfit to sit in the Oval Office is not "same old same old".
That the candidates refused to shake hands on the debate stage is not "same old same old".
Those are details of this election cycle that made it different from previous election cycles. Just like there were different details when Obama ran, and Bush before him.
The broad-strokes (as I see it and said before):
- There were still only two candidates put forth by the two parties that "we the people" are forced to pick from.
- There was still the same old "team picking" nonsense that leads to separation and animosity.
- There was still the same old mud-slinging childish behavior from both sides.
- The antiquated electoral college still chose the winner (or in this case the loser).
- We are still having this type of debate (same as 4, 8, 12 years ago) after the election.
- Everybody is still convinced this time it's gonna be disastrous (just like all other changes of power)
I am not going to give in to the mass hysteria. It'll calm down in a few months like it always does. The people will forget about for about 3 years. Then it'll start all over again. I suspect next election will be different though... hashtagSarcasm
Anyway... I made it clear that I was not trying to convince anybody of anything in here and I sincerely meant it. I feel like the "tone" in here has become more civil at least (which was really all I was hoping for).
In the modern world the word "bigot" has come to be used for people who hate a person or group of people based on race/religion/sexual-orientation.
However the actual definition of bigot is:
big·ot /ˈbiÉ¡É™t/ - noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
I find that interesting.
Post by: Ali on 15 Nov 2016, 13:41
I am not going to give in to the mass hysteria. It'll calm down in a few months like it always does. The people will forget about for about 3 years.
*Bookmarks thread and waits*
Also, Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot)'s definition of bigot more closely reflects contemporary usage:
Quote
"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 15 Nov 2016, 13:56
Quote
In the modern world the word "bigot" has come to be used for people who hate a person or group of people based on race/religion/sexual-orientation.
The actual definition is still valid though.
I came in to this thread taking neither side, just trying to express the need for tolerance and understanding.
So much continued intolerance.
Absolute unwillingness to see other's opinions.
My way or the highway.
Not with us, against us.
Sounds familiar?
Makes me sad.
I am tired of being sad.
Post by: Ali on 15 Nov 2016, 14:05
Compassion yes, tolerance no. I feel compassion for the poor, downtrodden, disenfranchised, under-educated, blinkered and misled Americans who voted for Trump. Tolerance of their jingoistic racism and misogyny? Never.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 15 Nov 2016, 14:15
Just sharing my different opinion.
Getting attacked for it.
Meriam-Webster's full definition of bigot:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
So if Google's definition doesn't work, does the same one you linked to work?
Post by: Ali on 15 Nov 2016, 14:46
While I have criticised people for defending Trump and Trump voters - there is a difference between belonging to a racial or ethnic group and being (for example) a Trump supporter. You're not born a Trump supporter, you decide to be one and criticism is legitimate.
I don't think I've demonstrated obstinate devotion to any prejudices. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 15 Nov 2016, 14:59
I wasn't calling you a bigot.
I think there's a disconnect here.
I'm not saying we should be tolerant of rape, racism, bigotry, etc.
I'm saying that I'm seeing bigotry exhibited in this thread.
The sentitment: support for Trump = you are a raping, racist bigot.
This is an obstinate and intolerant devotion to one's opinions/prejudices. Trump = bad, so anybody who supports him = bad.
To reduce a person's reason(s) for voting for Trump to a simple definition that supports your narrative is narrow-minded and intolerant. I have explained (several times) that when you're forced to choose A or B you sometimes have to latch on to a person you might even despise simply because you despise their opponent more. This is how it works in our presidential elections. It's not (only) the voters' faults, it's the fault of a broken system nobody seems inclined to do anything about fixing.
Just because person A thinks Clinton was the superior candidate doesn't mean everybody else will agree with them. We have to be willing to accept that just because we might think it's obvious A is better than B doesn't mean others will share those feelings.
I really am sad, and tired, of this. I feel like I'm repeating myself to a brick wall. Some people agree with me, some don't... that's okay. That's how it works.
I accept that.
Post by: Snarky on 15 Nov 2016, 18:25
The broad-strokes (as I see it and said before):
- There were still only two candidates put forth by the two parties that "we the people" are forced to pick from.
- There was still the same old "team picking" nonsense that leads to separation and animosity.
- The antiquated electoral college still chose the winner (or in this case the loser).
This literally just describes the American electoral system or its direct, inevitable characteristics. You are effectively saying that until the US has a revolution to do away with the Constitution, it doesn't matter who gets elected.
It's the laziest excuse for dismissing politics. It's like refusing to go to school because a required class has a final exam with a multiple choice section, and you think all questions should be open-answer. Or insisting that all politics is illegitimate until there's a union between the US and Canada. I mean, get real!
You know what, I agree that the US political system is pretty bad. Ideally I think you guys should have a monarchy, with a proportionally elected parliament and a Prime Minister chosen by the majority coalition. (I am 100% serious; I am a believer in constitutional monarchy as a form of government superior to the presidential system.) Does that mean until you guys get your shit together and proclaim a king, everything else is just "details" that don't matter? Of course not! That would be fucking moronic! There's never going to be a king of the United States (at least not the constitutional monarch I have in mind), just like you're never getting rid of the two-party system. For better or worse you're stuck with the Constitution, and you'll have to play by the rules as they are.
- There was still the same old mud-slinging childish behavior from both sides.
- We are still having this type of debate (same as 4, 8, 12 years ago) after the election.
- Everybody is still convinced this time it's gonna be disastrous (just like all other changes of power)
I am not going to give in to the mass hysteria. It'll calm down in a few months like it always does. The people will forget about for about 3 years. Then it'll start all over again.
Actually I don't think any of the last elections were anything like this, either from the candidates or the mainstream of supporters. There was a backlash against Obama that eventually led to the "Tea Party", but it took much longer to form.
And I'll just compare with things I personally posted here on the forums in the past few elections:
2012:
Romney is clearly well-qualified on paper to be president, but last time around he left everyone with the impression that he doesn't stand for anything and is prepared to change his mind on any issue for political advantage, and I think that will sink him in the primaries.
[...]
I think the best bet for the GOP is to pick a pair of candidates that look competent and trustworthy and aren't too extreme, who can play on populist anger without seeming like populists and can convince Americans that they know how to fix things without providing too many details about the painful choices they'll have to make. Then it all depends on how the economy is doing and whether the country is sick of Obama.
2008:
One of the fascinating things about the nomination process this particular year is that it has been a genuine race, with a lot of interesting and different candidates on both sides and no foregone conclusions. (The Democrats are generally very pleased with their options, while Republicans, at least conservative Republicans, are less thrilled with the candidates they have to choose from.) Consequently, interest and participation in the primary elections are way up, and Americans seem to be feeling a lot more cheerful about their democracy than they have for a long time.
I'd much rather have Obama, or even McCain [than fictional Jed Bartlet]. For all the desperate negative campaigning of the last few weeks, and the disqualifying pick of Palin as his running mate, McCain has mostly conducted an admirably honorable campaign. Moreso than Hillary Clinton did, I'd argue. When the dust settles, I think people will come to respect that.
2004:
I never hated John Kerry, but like many Democrats I was fairly lukewarm in my enthusiasm for him. In too many ways, he seemed like "Bush lite", with policy proposals that were just watered-down conservative positions. He failed to offer a clear and distinct alternative. Specifically on Iraq, but also in general. In recent speeches and in the debate, he went a long way towards rectifying this.
Other policies I was (and remain) uncomfortable with include his commitment to perpetuate the US policy of blind support for Israel, and his populist stance against free trade. However, a president who will pursue a fair Israel/Palestine policy is a pipe dream, and in spite of his rhetoric, Kerry's voting record remains solidly pro-free trade.
In learning more about Kerry, I have discovered how many of his opinions and priorities I share. I have been impressed by his life, as well as by his performance in the debate. I have come to feel that Goddammit! this man should be president.
Besides, consider the alternative...
I wasn't a fan of W, but I think it's clear that – speaking only for myself – the tone of commentary was entirely different in the last three elections than in this one.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 15 Nov 2016, 19:05
I really don't wish to keep repeating myself, or being called a moron for expressing my opinions.
We disagree. Let's just leave it at that and move on.
I truly hope the anger and intolerance that is permeating in this thread doesn't spread to the rest of the forums.
Be well.
Post by: Scavenger on 15 Nov 2016, 21:02
The sentitment: support for Trump = you are a raping, racist bigot.
Ughhhhhh. Ughhhhhh. Come on, don't get all sanctimonious on me. I've explained about five times already exactly what I meant, and getting all holier than thou "But you're being bigoted against Trump voters" is... Kind of insulting.
Its not that I don't understand their reasoning behind voting. But what they have done is incredibly harmful, and harmful things must be stopped. I'm sorry you don't think the rights of minority groups are more important than the rights of people to vote in really terrible candidates. But you're reaaaaaaaaaaaally implying that Trump hasn't actively campaigned for hatred and that the voters for him aren't complicit in enabling that hatred,thus have done something wrong that needs to be fixed.
The ultimate effect of their vote is:
- A lot of politicians who hate minorities are in high positions of power.
- Active bigotry has been validated, leading to an increase in hate crime.
- even if Trump does none of the things set out in his campaign, there will still be a scary left by empowered bigots, who will lash out at minorities.
I do not hate Trump voters for who they are. If they fixed their mistake, if they showed active compassion towards my people instead of at best, willing indifference, I would cease hating them. My hatred is not bigotry, but more, resentment for an action. If someone stole from me, if someone attacked me, I would hate them for their crime until they atoned.
This is not a hatred for an opinion. This is seeing an injustice done and wanting it fixed.
And you gotta understand that. I don't hate them for who they are. I hate their willing enabling of oppression. As soon as they show that they're not enabling oppression but fighting back, that ends my disagreement with them.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 16 Nov 2016, 00:08
Ughhhhhh. Ughhhhhh. Come on, don't get all sanctimonious on me. I've explained about five times already exactly what I meant, and getting all holier than thou "But you're being bigoted against Trump voters" is... Kind of insulting.
Its not that I don't understand their reasoning behind voting. But what they have done is incredibly harmful, and harmful things must be stopped. I'm sorry you don't think the rights of minority groups are more important than the rights of people to vote in really terrible candidates. But you're reaaaaaaaaaaaally implying that Trump hasn't actively campaigned for hatred and that the voters for him aren't complicit in enabling that hatred,thus have done something wrong that needs to be fixed.
The ultimate effect of their vote is:
- A lot of politicians who hate minorities are in high positions of power.
- Active bigotry has been validated, leading to an increase in hate crime.
- even if Trump does none of the things set out in his campaign, there will still be a scary left by empowered bigots, who will lash out at minorities.
I do not hate Trump voters for who they are. If they fixed their mistake, if they showed active compassion towards my people instead of at best, willing indifference, I would cease hating them. My hatred is not bigotry, but more, resentment for an action. If someone stole from me, if someone attacked me, I would hate them for their crime until they atoned.
This is not a hatred for an opinion. This is seeing an injustice done and wanting it fixed.
And you gotta understand that. I don't hate them for who they are. I hate their willing enabling of oppression. As soon as they show that they're not enabling oppression but fighting back, that ends my disagreement with them.
This may come as a shock to you Scavenger but the world doesn't revolve around you and "your people" (as you called them, just so you don't wrongly accuse me of discrimination again).
That's not discrimination, it's not sanctimony, it's not hatred, it's not bigotry, and it's not harmful. It's reality.
You think voting Trump was harmful. Is it too hard to conceive that maybe they think voting Clinton was harmful, and that harmful things must be stopped?
Let's say Clinton had a policy that would directly affect your parents (brother/sister/whatever) in a very negative way, and it scared you terribly for their future.
Would you still vote for her to prevent what Trump might do if he wins?
Let's say a Trump supporter was to tell you that he sees Clinton's policy of "ABC" (whatever) as a direct threat to his family's future and that's why he's voting for Trump.
Would you call him a hateful bigot because he wants to protect his family? More succinctly, would you insist he's not voting Trump for the reasons he claims, but rather the reasons you claim? Do you actually think you know his reasons better than he does?
People can back a candidate on countless factors that have nothing to do with you (or those like you).
If you are unwilling to accept this fact then you are, in my opinion, just being obstinately and intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices and we should just agree to disagree and move on.
I will still be a big fan of your artwork (nod)
Post by: Ali on 16 Nov 2016, 00:21
Let's say a Trump supporter was to tell you that he sees Clinton's policy of "ABC" (whatever) as a direct threat to his family's future and that's why he's voting for Trump.
No, not "ABC" (whatever), we're discussing real threats to women and minorities. Things that actually might happen. You can't draw a parallel between homophobia and a detail-free hypothetical.
What is the compelling fear that motivated this Trump voter? Can you argue that it's just as rational and substantial as the fear Scavenger is expressing?
You need to engage with the issues and do that if you're going to argue that the two candidates were as bad as each other.
Post by: Jack on 16 Nov 2016, 00:41
If trump's voters are responsible for his policies, then when are the people who voted for obama being charged for all his collateral drone kills? Would hillary's voters have been responsible for the civilian deaths resulting from her no-fly zone over syria, and the war with russia which follows?
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 16 Nov 2016, 00:46
No, not "ABC" (whatever), we're discussing real threats to women and minorities. Things that actually might happen. You can't draw a parallel between homophobia and a detail-free hypothetical.
Oh please, that's absolute nonsense.
Scavenger can answer hypothetical questions. It's not hard.
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Nov 2016, 00:55
This may come as a shock to you Scavenger but the world doesn't revolve around you and "your people" (as you called them, just so you don't wrongly accuse me of discrimination again).
Okay, so if gay and trans people don't get to fear for their lives because it's legal in 49/50 states to murder them "in a panic" and we've just elected someone who chose a vice president who is in support of torturing them until they cry that they're straight to make it stop and has repeatedly tried to defund HIV prevention in order to fund that, what about:
- Black people, whom Trump has repeatedly wanted to "law and order" over, and reintroduce stop and frisk, and for whom beating them up is normal and good?
- Latinx people, whom Trump called rapists and drug pushers, and called for the mass deportation of?
- Muslims, whom Trump wants to have labelled and banned from entering America?
- The disabled, whom Trump openly mocked and wants to remove the healthcare for?
- Women, whom Trump thinks is totally normal and good to grope and assault?
- Jewish people, whom Trump's lead strategist has lead a propaganda campaign against in his newspaper non stop since his inception?
By saying, the world doesn't revolve around the people I care about, which is, by the way, all minorities, since we're all in this together, not just the intersections I myself belong to, who are you saying it does revolve around? White people?
And yeah, I'd like an actual thing Clinton has proposed that's on the level of all of these, please. The life of real people is not to be debated with devil's advocate hypotheticals.
Post by: Ali on 16 Nov 2016, 00:57
Darth - as Scavenger says, you're asking us to weigh a substantial threat to the equality of gay people against a generalised feeling that something Clinton was going to do would have been bad. You must see how the specifics matter.
EDIT: Darth, on that one you're gent.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 16 Nov 2016, 01:19
Okay, so if gay and trans people don't get to fear for their lives because it's legal in 49/50 states to murder them "in a panic" and we've just elected someone who chose a vice president who is By saying, the world doesn't revolve around the people I care about, which is, by the way, all minorities, since we're all in this together, not just the intersections I myself belong to, who are you saying it does revolve around? White people?
Once again you completely missed the point and, instead, try to accuse me of something I didn't even remotely hint at. Please stop doing that.
And yeah, I'd like an actual thing Clinton has proposed that's on the level of all of these, please. The life of real people is not to be debated with devil's advocate hypotheticals.
Darth - as Scavenger says, you're asking us to weigh a substantial threat to the equality of gay people against a generalised feeling that something Clinton was going to do would have been bad. You must see how the specifics matter.
Absolutely! I can totally see how there might be factors to how Scavenger would answer that I hadn't considered before.
I withdraw the questions.
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Nov 2016, 01:32
Once again you completely missed the point and, instead, try to accuse me of something I didn't even remotely hint at. Please stop doing that.
Honestly I've spent most of my life with people saying "The world doesn't revolve around gay people" when I'm trying to ask for basic rights and protections. It's kind of a sore point if you use that kind of language. It's just the way the language was being used which was really reminiscient.
Post by: Snarky on 16 Nov 2016, 06:03
Snarky - I consider you a friend. Truly. But you have a frustrating habit of telling people what they are thinking/saying.
I really don't wish to keep repeating myself, or being called a moron for expressing my opinions.
We disagree. Let's just leave it at that and move on.
I truly hope the anger and intolerance that is permeating in this thread doesn't spread to the rest of the forums.
Be well.
If you find my posts frustratingly aggressive, rest assured that your passive-aggressive, above-it-all attitude is equally provocative to me.
In going back to discussions from previous elections I came across things you said back then, and I was using that context as well. For example, while I don't think this time around you've explicitly made an argument against voting, you did use the same points to make that argument in the past, and say it doesn't matter who is elected (and one that the Electoral College just chooses a winner regardless of how people vote). So I'm at a loss on how I can have distorted your position.
You say you don't want to repeat yourself, but the only thing I've actually asked of you is something I don't think I've ever seen in twelve years on this forum: A constructive explanation of how you would like the American political system to change, why you think the changes would make a meaningful difference, and a rationale for why, failing this, politics don't matter. For example, if you're going to argue, explicitly or implicitly, that George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama were "the same" as presidents, I'd like to hear what you think would be a good alternative, and what kind of political system might produce it.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 16 Nov 2016, 12:59
Honestly I've spent most of my life with people saying "The world doesn't revolve around gay people" when I'm trying to ask for basic rights and protections. It's kind of a sore point if you use that kind of language. It's just the way the language was being used which was really reminiscient.
I can understand that (that language has power).
I was not saying (or even implying) that you have no basic rights and protections.
What I was saying was that you, to me, do not have more (or less) rights than a black woman, or a white man, or a straight person, or a child.
The world doesn't revolve around any of them.
The world revolves around the sun 93,000,000 miles away.
I do not like to talk online about the "things" I do in my personal life but I will say, for whatever it's worth, you and your people have an ally in me. I don't see that changing anytime soon (no matter how angry you get at me!).
If you find my posts frustratingly aggressive, rest assured that your passive-aggressive, above-it-all attitude is equally provocative to me.
I didn't say aggressive.
I am saddened that you find my attitude to be passive-aggressive or provocative. Passive I intend. Aggressive not so much. I will try to work on that.
It's hard for me to imagine why pushing for understanding and tolerance would be provocative to somebody but I admit, that's just my feelings about my own opinions.
I respect that it bothers you.
I can assure you I am not trying to irritate/annoy anybody.
I just don't want our community to devolve the way it was in the Bush era.
In going back to discussions from previous elections I came across things you said back then, and I was using that context as well. For example, while I don't think this time around you've explicitly made an argument against voting, you did use the same points to make that argument in the past, and say it doesn't matter who is elected (and one that the Electoral College just chooses a winner regardless of how people vote). So I'm at a loss on how I can have distorted your position.
People change. Opinions alter. Time moves on.
You say you don't want to repeat yourself, but the only thing I've actually asked of you is something I don't think I've ever seen in twelve years on this forum: A constructive explanation of how you would like the American political system to change, why you think the changes would make a meaningful difference, and a rationale for why, failing this, politics don't matter. For example, if you're going to argue, explicitly or implicitly, that George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama were "the same" as presidents, I'd like to hear what you think would be a good alternative, and what kind of political system might produce it.
Sure I have some ideas about how to "fix" the system but I really have no desire to go into that here.
I don't feel like my sentiment that our system is "broken" is invalidated simply because I am not putting forth my thoughts on a solution.
I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person but I'm willing to concede that while I feel I'm smart enough to know there is a problem; I don't feel qualified (smart enough) to solve it.
I own that.
I'm not a politician or an expert on constitutional law.
I might know I need to have my gallbladder removed, doesn't mean I know how to remove it. I'd leave that to a surgeon.
Post by: Stupot on 16 Nov 2016, 13:45
I'm not a politician or an expert on constitutional law.
Neither is Donald Trump :P
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 16 Nov 2016, 13:46
Neither is Donald Trump :P
You'll get no argument from me on that!
Post by: Jack on 16 Nov 2016, 17:39
Had she won, Clinton supporters would absolutely have had to accept that they supported the USA's appalling use of drones in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Would it be fair to say though that someone who voted for hillary for any reason at all, fully supports drone murder? That their intention is to kill syrians? That we should hate them for this?
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Nov 2016, 18:12
Would it be fair to say though that someone who voted for hillary for any reason at all, fully supports drone murder? That their intention is to kill syrians? That we should hate them for this?
Well, Trump was in favor of nuking them, so, if we're looking at doing the least harm, Hillary still comes out on top as the choice most likely to hurt the least Syrians, based on their campaigns.
And yeah, it's shitty that there wasn't a viable third option (voting third party in the US election system is, as previously discussed, pointless), but Trump is pretty much more violent, xenophobic, corrupt, and bigoted than Hillary. There's pretty much nothing you can say about her that isn't on display much worse in Trump.
Post by: Jack on 16 Nov 2016, 18:25
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Nov 2016, 18:55
That's not what I asked.
OK, but you can't ask stuff like that without the full context in which the thing was asked - directly comparing stuff like this to score points against people is really petty and disingenuous. I'd say the question itself was wrong, and asked in bad faith.
If, for instance, there was a viable alternative candidate who did not support drone strikes or attacks at all, yes, you would have to take voters for her to task on that issue, as there would have been a choice involved in that issue. However, that is not the situation voters found themselves in. The context in which the choice was made would have to have been completely different for what you're driving at to be a valid point.
So no, it is not fair to say that voters for her hate Syrians, as they were not given a choice to not have a leader who was against it.
However. If they do not at least attempt to contact their representative to try to stop the drone strikes, then they are pretty much just letting it happen. The vote itself here isn't just what matters but the actions they take afterward as well.
In the same vein if someone voted for Trump, that's super bad, but that's not the whole story. If they voted for him and immediately campaigned to stop his bigotry, that's them holding themselves accountable and doing the least harm. Though in this case doing the least harm to minorities is voting for Hillary since she isn't actively campaigning to label and deport them. But hey, we can all make terrible mistakes and work to fix them later.
You can't boil down shit like this into easy gotchas. I've said repeatedly that I would not resent a Trump voter if they actually stood up and fought for the people that his administration was attacking. I'd hold a hillary voter just as accountable - they gotta fight back against drone strikes and stuff.
Post by: Jack on 16 Nov 2016, 19:09
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Nov 2016, 19:17
Trump is so fundamentally evil in pretty much every one of his policies, and openly campaigned for evil, that he is really unfit to be president. His appointing pretty much only bigots is only the start of all the awful almost irreversable things he could do that could hurt a lot of real people, and not hypothetical people like you're obsessed with.
Stop trying to do gotchas, you're really bad at them.
Post by: Jack on 16 Nov 2016, 19:38
That's large numbers of civilian casualties at least, and a likely war with russia at worst. That's not to mention all the other things stated already.
Trump is so fundamentally evil in pretty much every one of his policies, and openly campaigned for evil, that he is really unfit to be president.
A lot of people feel the same about hillary. Should they hate people who voted for her, because they haven't opposed things she hasn't done yet?
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 16 Nov 2016, 19:39
[Hillary] Clinton supports the use of targeted drone strikes, and says they were one of the most effective counter-terrorism strategies during her time in the Obama administration. [source (http://dronecenter.bard.edu/presidential-candidates-on-drones/)]
"We will always maintain our right to use force against groups such as al-Qaeda that have attacked us and still threaten us with imminent attack,"
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
She even potentially admitted to war-crimes carried out by drone-strikes while she was in the Obama administration. [source (http://www.salon.com/2016/06/06/in_attack_on_trump_clinton_accidentally_admits_drone_killings_of_civilians_are_a_war_crime/)]
Whether or not Trump has similar (or worse) policies dealing with the same subject you made it very clear that, no matter what your reasoning might be, if you voted for Trump you support bigotry/hatred.
Given that, I'd say it's fair to say that you support the continued use of drones to commit targeted killings if you support Clinton.
You have also said:
Quote
However. If they do not at least attempt to contact their representative to try to stop the drone strikes, then they are pretty much just letting it happen. The vote itself here isn't just what matters but the actions they take afterward as well.
So it almost sounds like you're saying it's possible to support a candidate while not simultaneously supporting all their policies?
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Nov 2016, 20:15
So it almost sounds like you're saying it's possible to support a candidate while not simultaneously supporting all their policies?
I'm saying that in this election Hillary Clinton was by far the least awful option. Trump did have all of her aggression and more against other countries. And what would be the option? Not vote and let Trump get in? Vote for a third party that would only help Trump get into power because of the broken system?
It's like, why the hell would you vote for someone who doesn't even seem amenable to the least bit of criticism AND has more extreme views than the alternative? Yeah, I have my principles, but I'm not stupid. Pragmatically you'd have a better chance at convincing her than him, especially with the awful people he surrounds himself with.
Yes, it is possible to support a candidate you don't agree on 100% with, that's like, every candidate. But you gotta start with the one that is not wholly incompetent and running on a platform of bigotry.
Also, if there are so many people voting for Trump and also supporting people's rights, where are the "Trump voters for lobbying Trump to not start registering Muslims and deporting immigrants" campaigns?
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 16 Nov 2016, 20:43
I'm saying that in this election Hillary Clinton was by far the least awful option.You feel that way. Trump supporters do not.
Yes, it is possible to support a candidate you don't agree on 100% withThis is all I was hoping for.
Post by: Problem on 16 Nov 2016, 21:09
But let me try to explain why I have trouble understanding Trump voters:
Clinton's plans are pretty much more of the same compared to what Obama did. Some good, some bad. Clinton is the personified status quo, which is not a nice thing to say.
But then it's really hard for me to find anything about Trumps campaign that wasn't disgusting or frightening - insulting pretty much every minority was only the beginning, and it ended with him questioning the whole election unless he wins, which is quite simply a dictator's reasoning. I have yet to hear a single good explanation why this would be preferable, unless you're completely uninformed or you really believe that this attitude is an improvement over the status quo. And yes, if someone believes that, I'll oppose vehemently.
Now, I'm lucky. I'm white, male, straight, born in a wealthy country with a more or less liberal government. Jackpot! Nothing of this is my own achievement, but I could say that I don't care and that it won't be all bad, and it's all same and probably nothing will change in the long run. After all I'm not affected. Because, you know, luck. But this would only downplay a dangerous development (and it would make me an asshole by the way). What happens in the US has an effect on Europe. And we have our own racists, they are getting more and more powerful, and some are even worse than Trump will ever be. So the most dangerous thing you can do is underestimate the consequences. Maybe it won't get worse, maybe it will stop. But I wouldn't bet my money on it. And so, I'm deeply worried, and I have strong feelings against people who vote for someone like Trump just for the heck of it. Be it in the US, here in Germany, or anywhere else.
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Nov 2016, 22:15
You feel that way. Trump supporters do not.
Give me one thing Clinton campaigned for during the election that is as hateful and murderous as what Trump did every day and appointed people for. Not an economic thing, not the emails thing, but something that targeted a group of marginalised people with murderous rhetoric. Something that made people fear for their very lives and basic human rights. (oh, and it has to be something that Trump didn't say the same or worse about.)
It should be easy, if Trump voters truly were voting for what they believed to be the lesser of two evils, right?
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 16 Nov 2016, 22:48
If I have the choice between drones and nukes, I'll grudgingly take drones.
Whenever I hear this I can't help but thinking, "should I use a 9mm pistol or my Star Wars laser blaster?"
Even if Trump was gung-ho to use nukes, the president cannot wake up in the middle of the night and press the button.
It's a little more complicated than that.
Can somebody link me to a direct quote (video would be better) where Trump says he wanted to use nukes? I googled and only found a bunch of accusations (with no evidence) and a bunch of quotes of him being very dumb about it and saying basically it would be the last thing he would do but he won't "take the cards off the table". He sounds, as usual, like he has no real idea what he's talking about but I didn't hear him say he wants/intends to use them, just that he would if he had to.
I'd like to hear/see him specifically say he intends to use them as this seems to the be the thing anti-Trump people are most concerned about.
Give me one thing Clinton campaigned for during the election that is as hateful and murderous as what Trump did every day and appointed people for. Not an economic thing, not the emails thing, but something that targeted a group of marginalised people with murderous rhetoric. Something that made people fear for their very lives and basic human rights.
Damn.
I thought we were past this.
Repeat: You really need to stop assuming that everybody thinks like you do.
You think Clinton's worst policies are better than Trump's best.
You think that.
It's important to realize that you don't get to determine what even one single other person on this planet thinks.
It's just a fact.
Until you can accept that you're going to continue to be disappointed and angry and intolerant.
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Nov 2016, 23:02
Until you can accept that you're going to continue to be disappointed and angry and intolerant.
You keep calling me intolerant, but the only thing I'm intolerant of is bigotry. I know what bigotry is, I know the effect it's having on my American friends, and I know that not a single Trump supporter has come forward to say "Hey, I'll fight for the rights of the marginalised, now let's get Trump to not try to profile and deport people".
Okay then, give me how someone else thinks - explain to me their thought processes, so that I know how they overlooked all of Trump's really overt and hateful rhetoric and hiring choices (Like Mike "Gay Kid Torture Legislator" Pence during his campaign) and still think that Clinton is the worse one. Like, clearly I'm incapable of thinking like a Trump voter. Please, explain it to me. I really want to know.
Post by: Crimson Wizard on 16 Nov 2016, 23:20
Okay then, give me how someone else thinks - explain to me their thought processes, so that I know how they overlooked all of Trump's really overt and hateful rhetoric and hiring choices (Like Mike "Gay Kid Torture Legislator" Pence during his campaign) and still think that Clinton is the worse one. Like, clearly I'm incapable of thinking like a Trump voter. Please, explain it to me. I really want to know.
I feel quite awkward jumping into discussion at this point (esp. as a complete stranger), but I was curious about similar thing recently, and occasionally found this article:
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/meet-lgbtq-voters-who-backed-trump-n684181
Just wanted to note that with multitude of interviews and surveys that might be easier to check those to know people's reasoning of choosing this or that candidate, rather then demanding Darth Mandarb to explain them.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 16 Nov 2016, 23:36
You keep calling me intolerant, but the only thing I'm intolerant of is bigotry. I know what bigotry is, I know the effect it's having on my American friends, and I know that not a single Trump supporter has come forward to say "Hey, I'll fight for the rights of the marginalised, now let's get Trump to not try to profile and deport people".
You are intolerant to contrary viewpoints.
I mean I'm not even disagreeing with you that Trump is "bad" or that his policies are "evil and hate-filled" but yet, because I'm simply suggesting that other people might not think like you, you're lashing out at me.
I'm curious... Trump, like Clinton, supports continued use of targeted drone strikes. Are you contacting people to protest this? You suggested you would do that had Clinton won (since you support her but not that policy) so I'm curious if you're doing it now that Trump has won. Or would you only do that if the candidate you supported won the oval office?
What about Trump's stance on the TPP (which affects all of us, not just minorities)? Are you contacting people about this?
What about Trump's pro-life/pro-choice stance (which affects all of us, not just minorities)? Are you contacting people about this?
Or are you only concerned with the stuff that affects you?
Okay then, give me how someone else thinks - explain to me their thought processes, so that I know how they overlooked all of Trump's really overt and hateful rhetoric and hiring choices (Like Mike "Gay Kid Torture Legislator" Pence during his campaign) and still think that Clinton is the worse one. Like, clearly I'm incapable of thinking like a Trump voter. Please, explain it to me. I really want to know.
I've explained this several times already.
I've asked several questions and made several statements/points in this thread in the interests of understanding where you're coming from and you haven't addressed most of them.
You fixate on one part here or there that allows you to lash out (repetitively) in anger.
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Nov 2016, 23:57
Post by: Ali on 16 Nov 2016, 23:58
Had she won, Clinton supporters would absolutely have had to accept that they supported the USA's appalling use of drones in Pakistan and elsewhere.Would it be fair to say though that someone who voted for hillary for any reason at all, fully supports drone murder? That their intention is to kill syrians? That we should hate them for this?
It would be fair to say exactly what I said in that quote. They supported it. Would it be fair for a victim of a drone bomb to hate Clinton's supporters? I could certainly understand that. I haven't said that we should all hate Trump voters, I've said they have to accept their complicity in a most dangerous kind of bigotry.
Given that, I'd say it's fair to say that you support the continued use of drones to commit targeted killings if you support Clinton.
Yes, of course you do. If you hold your nose and vote for someone, you have to take the bad with the (in Clinton's case) less bad. But you can't make the 'lesser of two evils' argument when the candidate you're defending is, by any historical comparison, the greater evil.
I would have more sympathy if criticism of Clinton had focused more on her foreign policy and less on her bloody eeeeeeeeemails.
Here's Trump saying some stuff about nuclear weapons. I said he wanted to nuke ISIS - I apologise for that overstatement*. In fairness, he's at pains to make it clear that nuclear would be a last resort. In context he merely said he wouldn't rule it out for the Middle East, or Europe:
He was subsequently pressed on these issues and stood by his insistence that "Europe is a big place. I'm not going to take cards off the table.", and boasted of his unpredictability as a businessman.
That's not as clear cut as I made out. But it's hardly a case of warmonger versus peacemaker.
*or to put that apology in Trump's voice: "I never said that. Huge lie. It's really terrible this lying media, folks. Real shame."
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 17 Nov 2016, 00:42
Yes, of course you do. If you hold your nose and vote for someone, you have to take the bad with the (in Clinton's case) less bad. But you can't make the 'lesser of two evils' argument when the candidate you're defending is, by any historical comparison, the greater evil.
Could you give more reasoning behind feeling the "lesser of two evils" argument can't be made here?
I would agree that it's pretty obvious (to me) that Trump is the greater evil but I still find Clinton to be "evil". So it would still be the lesser of two evils argument as far as my support for either would be concerned.
Not being argumentative, I'm genuinely curious.
Here's Trump saying some stuff about nuclear weapons. I said he wanted to nuke ISIS - I apologise for that overstatement*. In fairness, he's at pains to make it clear that nuclear would be a last resort. In context he merely said he wouldn't rule it out for the middle east, or Europe:
He was subsequently pressed on these issues and stood by his insistence that "Europe is a big place. I'm not going to take cards off the table.", and boasted of his unpredictability as a businessman.
It's interesting to me how you, who I know isn't prone to hyperbole, made that overstatement.
I'm not judging, just an observation.
We are all guilty of it from time to time (and you owned it, kudos).
I'm just saying it makes me wonder how often that happens in the modern world? Particularly with something as "global" as a presidential election.
A candidate says something, somebody else interprets it and repeats it (intentionally or unintentionally overstating or, worse, intentionally altering it to fit their agenda to make somebody look better/worse as needed) and then it runs amok on social/mainstream media and it becomes "fact" in many peoples' minds.
I've seen several instances of videos that are conveniently edited to make a person seem they said one thing but if you watch the video in its entirety and put those quotes in a larger context the meaning is totally different.
It's scary to me how easily this happens.
And people just accept it without fact-checking.
I mentioned it earlier (I think) about how it's so hard to sort through fact/fiction when researching a candidate these days.
That's not as clear cut as I made out. But it's hardly a case of warmonger versus peacemaker.
I have to think that every president has to have thought about the potential need to use nukes.
Is it a reality of being the leader of a nuclear powered country? I think it must be?
I think it's probably something previous presidents has the common-sense not to talk about publicly though.
I feel pretty sure I couldn't give the order if I were president. I mean maybe to try to knock an asteroid off course or something but not to annihilate human life. Gives me chills just doing the thought experiment.
Maybe I won't run for president in 2020 after all...
*or to put that apology in Trump's voice: "I never said that. Huge lie. It's really terrible this lying media, folks. Real shame."
I could actually hear his voice.
Post by: LimpingFish on 17 Nov 2016, 01:19
Like, clearly I'm incapable of thinking like a Trump voter.
Yes, you are. Just like I am, and just like most people who didn't want to see Trump in the White House are. That's why this current debate, which I think Darth is getting a lot of flack for and somewhat unfairly (though, it has to be said, intolerance to viewpoints and disagreeing with them, however strongly, are two vastly different things), has no resolution.
Leaving aside Nationalism/Racism/Sexism/Bigotry, how many mindsets can we divide the remaining Trump voters (and I have a feeling that this may be one of the largest parts of his voting demographic) into? The disenfranchised? The anti-Clinton? Anarchists? Bernie Saunders, who personally I would have liked to see nominated instead of Clinton, was asked, after pulling out of the race, was he now going to tell his supporters to vote for Clinton. He replied, "Vote with your heart." What are we to take from that? Was it a dig at Clinton? Was it a plea against Trump? Or was is simply a reminder to vote based on who you thought would make the better President. Well, America has chosen.
But who, and I want to know this too as I'm damn angry at them, are we looking to blame? Well, I'm angry that enough Americans didn't believe in the worries of, or simply didn't care about, their fellow countrymen. I'm angry that enough Americans didn't think that concrete evidence (regarding his lack of political experience and general suitability, not his personal views) was presented to deter them from voting Trump. And, yes, I believe that a pro-Trump vote was simply a thinly-veiled anti-Clinton vote, and, as such, was an incredibly reckless position for over fifty percent of Americans to take, however they felt about their political system. Reckless not just with their own future, but with that of the rest of the world, for which, I think, the rest of the world has a right to feel shafted.
So, I guess I'm angry at America herself.
As I said earlier, my opinion of America (and Americans) has changed (just as it did in 2008). But that change was coming throughout 2016, and this just capped it off. Is that unfair? Do I have a right to say America is a lesser country for having voted this man, and his rhetoric, into office? Ehhh.
I'll decry Trump and his supporters until I'm blue in the face, because that's who I am. But just as I feel I may be incapable of comprehending a non-racist/sexist/bigoted Trump vote, though I'm sure they exist, I can comprehend that these voters felt they were making the better choice. For who? Ask me again in four years.
I'm happy to make this my final word in this thread, since politics, along with Organized Religion, really shouldn't be discussed (at length) in respectable company, for fear of diversions into circular terrain. I humbly suggest others follow suit, as that rock is starting to look very familiar...
Post by: Jack on 17 Nov 2016, 01:40
On the subject of stability, it seems 2016 offered the worst of choices: Where Was Hillary? (https://spectator.org/where-was-hillary/)
Post by: Problem on 17 Nov 2016, 07:53
It's a little more complicated than that.It is more complicated that that, and that's exactly why my post is ten times as long as the line you quoted. No, he's not going to nuke the planet. Great news. If you bothered to read what I have written instead of picking one flippant line, it should be absolutely clear that nukes are not my main concern. I explained how I feel about the election, how people are responsible for their vote and how you shouldn't underestimate the consequences of an election. I wrote about Trump, his campaign and what this election could mean for other countries and why it worries me. I talked about how easy it is to downplay policies if they don't seem to affect you. But if someone ignores pretty much everything I write and only picks the most convenient line, it's impossible to discuss. Sorry, but there's no point continuing like this, so I'm out.
Post by: Snarky on 17 Nov 2016, 08:06
Even if Trump was gung-ho to use nukes, the president cannot wake up in the middle of the night and press the button.
It's a little more complicated than that.
The actual mechanics of it are a little more involved, but the president does in fact have unilateral power to launch nukes, and the military has to obey:
Quote
There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell.http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955
If he gave the command, his executing commanders would have no legal or procedural grounds to defy it no matter how inappropriate it might seem. As long as the president can establish his or her true identity by his or her personal presence in the Pentagon's nuclear war room or its alternates (places like Site R at Fort Richie near Camp David), or by phone or other means of communications linking him or her to these war rooms using a special identification card (colloquially known as “the biscuit” containing “the nuclear codes”) in his or her possession (or, alternatively, kept inside the “nuclear briefcase” carried by his or her military aide who shadows the president everywhere he or she works, travels and plays), a presidential nuclear decision is lawful (putting international humanitarian law aside). It must be obeyed as long as it is constitutional—i.e., the president as commander in chief believes he or she is acting to protect and defend the nation against an actual or imminent attack.
But within these broad constraints there is no wiggle room for evasion or defiance of the president's orders. That's true even if the national security adviser, the secretary of defense (who along with the president makes up the “national command authority”) and other top appointees and advisers disagree with the president's decision. It does not matter whether the United States has already come under attack by nuclear or non-nuclear weapons. It does not even matter if the commander in chief simply orders the use of nuclear weapons on an ordinary day for reasons unknown to all but him or her. Under the president's open-ended mandate to decide when the national interest is threatened, ordering up a nuclear strike is his or her prerogative, and obeying the order is incumbent upon the military servants of civilian authority.
If he did so outside of a context that could be considered an immediate existential threat to the US, one would hope those around him would conclude that he'd gone insane and have him removed from office, but given the people he's surrounded himself with I wouldn't want to take that chance.
Post by: Blondbraid on 17 Nov 2016, 09:52
It's hard too see the advantages of a two-party system when it boiled down to a very even race between two widely unliked candidates and a huge number of voters didn't even vote...
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 17 Nov 2016, 13:44
It is more complicated that that, and that's exactly why my post is ten times as long as the line you quoted. No, he's not going to nuke the planet. Great news. If you bothered to read what I have written instead of picking one flippant line, it should be absolutely clear that nukes are not my main concern.
That one [flippant] line was the only one I felt compelled to respond to.
I wasn't really even responding to you specifically, just the over-all sentiment of that one line.
The rest of what you wrote was more of the same that's been said many times in this thread and I am tired of having the anti-trump propaganda shoved in my face when I've made it abundantly clear I did/do not support the man or his policies.
Please stop?
though, it has to be said, intolerance to viewpoints and disagreeing with them, however strongly, are two vastly different things
I agree.
I think, perhaps, I worded that poorly (maybe intolerant was the wrong word?).
It was more about the absolute refusal to accept that somebody could even have a contrary opinion and less about disagreeing with the specifics of that contrary opinion.
I'm happy to make this my final word in this thread, since politics, along with Organized Religion, really shouldn't be discussed (at length) in respectable company, for fear of diversions into circular terrain. I humbly suggest others follow suit, as that rock is starting to look very familiar...
This is very true.
We hate Trump because he's an intolerant hate machine.
So now that he's been elected we will show hatred and intolerance towards those that supported him.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Post by: Problem on 17 Nov 2016, 14:09
The rest of what you wrote was more of the same that's been said many times in this thread and I am tired of having the anti-trump propaganda shoved in my face when I've made it abundantly clear I did/do not support the man or his policies.
Please stop?
So you really think that any of my posts "shoved propaganda in your face"? Wow. Well, that's your way of dealing with other people's opinions. Don't worry, I will stop
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 17 Nov 2016, 15:06
So you really think that any of my posts "shoved propaganda in your face"? Wow. Well, that's your way of dealing with other people's opinions. Don't worry, I will stopexplaibothering you with my propaganda now.
That is just hurtful. :(
Will you please answer the following question with just yes or no?
Do you accept that there are people on the planet who don't share your views/opinions/beliefs?
Post by: Problem on 17 Nov 2016, 15:19
---
And I've never stated otherwise. My dear Sith Lord, I have a lot of respect for you, and until these last few posts this was a very interesting discussion. I don't want to be angry with anyone, but your "propaganda" post, and this last question really bother me. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? I've expressed my worries, I've tried to explain why I tend to hold people responsible for their vote, and I explained why I oppose certain attitudes. But could you please quote a passage where I indicated that everybody has to share my opinion?
Post by: Radiant on 17 Nov 2016, 16:24
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 17 Nov 2016, 16:28
And I've never stated otherwise. My dear Sith Lord, I have a lot of respect for you, and until these last few posts this was a very interesting discussion. I don't want to be angry with anyone, but your "propaganda" post, and this last question really bother me. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? I've expressed my worries, I've tried to explain why I tend to hold people responsible for their vote, and I explained why I oppose certain attitudes. But could you please quote a passage where I indicated that everybody has to share my opinion?
No worries Problem. I really wasn't trying to bother or offend you, I promise!
You never said people had to share your opinion. That wasn't what I was saying (or implying).
I feel fairly confident saying that pretty much everybody who's contributed to this topic feels Trump is a "bad" person.
Could his presidency be disastrous for the world? Yes, it could.
Could it be not so bad? I think it's possible (and I'm hoping for it).
I'm not judging you for your feelings about Trump supporters, just expressing that I don't fully agree with you.
I, personally, do not feel comfortable labeling people "bad" (who I know to be good people) just because they voted for Trump.
There's just too many factors involved in backing a candidate for me to feel justified in making assumptions about a person's character based on which candidate they chose.
Especially when they only have 2 [real] candidates to choose from.
Maybe you disagree and, to you, there was a clear-cut "better" candidate so anybody who wouldn't back her is wrong.
I can accept that.
I just disagree :D
for somebody calling people out for disrespecting other opinions, you sure show a lot of disrespect for other people's opinions
I respect your opinion.
Could you please quote something I said that you interpreted as disrespect for somebody else's opinion?
Post by: Problem on 17 Nov 2016, 17:07
I, personally, do not feel comfortable labeling people "bad" (who I know to be good people) just because they voted for Trump.
There's just too many factors involved in backing a candidate for me to feel justified in making assumptions about a person's character based on which candidate they chose.
Especially when they only have 2 [real] candidates to choose from.
Maybe you disagree and, to you, there was a clear-cut "better" candidate so anybody who wouldn't back her is wrong.
I can accept that.
I just disagree :D
No, I actually agree with you. I would not call anybody "bad" for how they voted. But my main concern is that some people are too careless with their votes. I mean, come on, if someone votes for Trump he or she should at least partially agree with him. And for me it's easier to understand (rationally, not ethically) that someone votes for Trump because he or she actually agrees with him and thinks his plans are great. Like it or not, but there is a logic behind such a vote.
But there are clearly people who are not racist, bigoted, homophobic or sexist, people who don't care about his policy at all. People who voted for Trump just to shake up the establishment for example (generously ignoring that Trump has always been part of the establishment, but that's a different topic). And while the intentions may be good, this can be very dangerous if you do it just for the heck of it, not taking into account what this candidate stands for.
Add to that that I'm German and that we have some experience with what can happen if too many people vote with their guts instead of their brains(*), and you know the reason why I'm arguing so passionately against a "doesn't matter" or "nothing will change anyway" attitude. Because things can change radically, and voting is not just there to annoy the people. It can make a difference, for the better or for the worse.
(*) before somebody gets this wrong: no, Trump is not Hitler.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 17 Nov 2016, 18:50
No, I actually agree with you. I would not call anybody "bad" for how they voted. But my main concern is that some people are too careless with their votes. I mean, come on, if someone votes for Trump he or she should at least partially agree with him. And for me it's easier to understand (rationally, not ethically) that someone votes for Trump because he or she actually agrees with him and thinks his plans are great. Like it or not, but there is a logic behind such a vote.
You have nailed most of my problems with our election system in that small paragraph!
Add to that that I'm German and that we have some experience with what can happen if too many people vote with their guts instead of their brains(*), and you know the reason why I'm arguing so passionately against a "doesn't matter" or "nothing will change anyway" attitude. Because things can change radically, and voting is not just there to annoy the people. It can make a difference, for the better or for the worse.
I made a joke the other day about how the voting booths should have a test you have to take after you cast your ballot so only those voting with their brains would have a valid vote.
Like there's 100 questions for each candidate (each question has 10 variations on how it's asked) and their policies/beliefs/agenda.
The booth's test would select 20 random questions/variants from the pool.
The voter selects their answer to each question. The system doesn't tell them if they got it right or wrong and doesn't tell them if they pass or fail.
If you pass the test, your vote counts. Don't pass the test, your vote isn't counted.
Then we could see:
Total Votes for Trump: 61,270,312
Valid Votes for Trump: 17
(laugh)
Post by: Ryan Timothy B on 18 Nov 2016, 02:45
[Trump] sounds, as usual, like he has no real idea what he's talking about [..]He has my vote! (roll)
Anyway you keep speaking of how Hillary was more evil than Trump, care to elaborate without the "9mm vs Star Wars pistol" analogies? Was it just a gut feeling, that sinister smirk of hers? It can't be about money or hunger for power - because that's also Trump. For instance, if I recall correctly, the drone strikes are so far the only evil thing you've denounced. Yet Trump openly saying he'll kill the families of terrorists, or his potential use of nukes, is (for some reason) a more acceptable strategy. With Trump you were never left to guess what kind of person he was or what he opposed, as he couldn't keep his thoughts to himself, regardless of how sinister and barbaric or completely false they were, he openly expressed it. Anyway I believe I'm through initial shock of this "Trumpageddon" and so the anger has subsided, now instead of directing hatred towards Trump supporters, it's now pity.
Post by: Danvzare on 18 Nov 2016, 11:04
I was starting to get worried.
Post by: Radiant on 18 Nov 2016, 11:06
Nice to see things finally calming down in here. :-D
I was starting to get worried.
If by "calming down" you mean that one side has successfully hounded the other away from participating, then yes.
Post by: Problem on 18 Nov 2016, 12:08
I made a joke the other day about how the voting booths should have a test you have to take after you cast your ballot so only those voting with their brains would have a valid vote.
Like there's 100 questions for each candidate (each question has 10 variations on how it's asked) and their policies/beliefs/agenda.
The booth's test would select 20 random questions/variants from the pool.
The voter selects their answer to each question. The system doesn't tell them if they got it right or wrong and doesn't tell them if they pass or fail.
If you pass the test, your vote counts. Don't pass the test, your vote isn't counted.
Then we could see:
Total Votes for Trump: 61,270,312
Valid Votes for Trump: 17
(laugh)
The question is why so many people aren't informed or simply don't care about the candidates' agendas. One thing is probably education. Democracy doesn't work if people have no clue what they are voting for or against, it depends on citiŠºens that have at least a basic knowledge about how things work in their country and in the world. And that is difficult to achieve in times that become more and more complex. Being overwhelmed, people tend to look for simple answers, but there are none.
Another thing is the election campaign, and this is where the candidates and political parties are directly responsible. The more emotional a political campaign gets, the less likely people are to vote rationally. And I think we agree that this campaign was full of emotions - mostly negative.
It's also something inherent in two party systems or systems where the parties are divided into two big camps. My impression (judging from outside, so correct me if I'm wrong) was that during Obama's time in office, most Republicans were not interested in what is good for the people, they were mostly interested in "winning", opposing Obama just for the sake of opposing him. This attitude solves no problems and pushes the policies into the background, and for some Republicans who were against Trump, it might have backfired, because Trump is the next logical step on this way.
Post by: WHAM on 18 Nov 2016, 12:12
Despite being European (Finnish to be precise) I watched the pre-election and the election with a lot of interest and tried to do some reading up on both primary candidates and their campaign messages. While neither of the two are especially good candidates, I do feel that Trump was by far the lesser of two evils, especially from the European point of view.
Clinton drove, as part of her past career and her bid for presidency, a tougher attitude towards Russia, a country already floundering and starting to get desperate due to economic sanctions and rapidly growing inflation due to US and EU actions, as well as America taking a more aggressive role in Syria through establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone that would ground Russian and Syrian aircraft in Syria, an act that many, myself included, feared would lead to an open armed conflict between US and Russia (as the idea that Syria and Russia would just allow the US to set the rules in Syria is, in my opinion, laughable).
Trump, instead, has talked of warming up the US / Russia relations, lowering economic barriers and sanctions and reducing hostility in how the two nations interact directly and indirectly. Additionally Trump's view on the EU and NATO have been far more realistic and, while admittedly self-centered (America First, Make America Great Again), practical in wishing to reduce the US's role as the aggressive world police and the dominant military power in Europe, instead expecting European nations to care for European defense interests. It is no wonder that Putin has had a far warmer response to Trump throughout the campaign, as of the two candidates, Trump was not the one openly aggressive and hostile towards him.
As for matters that do not as directly affect Europe and me, such as America's relations with China and Mexico, I can easily see why Trump's campaign message was far better received than Clinton's. His views are selfish and self-centered, but as he represents the United States, he is by extension interested in advancing their national agenda, even at the cost of international popularity. If he can do what he says he wants to do: create jobs and reinforce the US economy into a more effective and competitive entity, I believe that will also be a long-term positive to Europe as well.
The upcoming 4 years will be interesting, and I will be curious to see which parts of Trump's campaign translate into actual acts and changes. All in all I feel the US elected a president that well represents the public image of their nation. I hope he does well and that the unrest and violence in the schools and streets of the US calm down soon.
Post by: Darth Mandarb on 18 Nov 2016, 12:42
Anyway you keep speaking of how Hillary was more evil than Trump
I do?
Nice to see things finally calming down in here. :-D
I was starting to get worried.
I find that when common-sense and reasoning are used properly, things can remain civil.
Some just can't see that though.
The question is why so many people aren't informed or simply don't care about the candidates' agendas. One thing is probably education. Democracy doesn't work if people have no clue what they are voting for or against, it depends on citiŠºens that have at least a basic knowledge about how things work in their country and in the world. And that is difficult to achieve in times that become more and more complex. Being overwhelmed, people tend to look for simple answers, but there are none.
Education is the key. I said it a bit earlier; the problem, as I see it, is that there's too much information/disinformation that's so easily accessible.
Sure some are lazy and don't bother to look.
Others look, study, and get exhausted trying to sort through the data to find what's real and what's fake and just give up.
Others look and just believe the first thing they read and don't research it (this is the biggest problem I think).
Then there are some (I would suspect in a minority here) that sort through it all and have an informed opinion.
This is another one of those "I have no idea how to fix it" problems because the Pandora's box of the information world is opened and can't (shouldn't) be closed.
Another thing is the election campaign, and this is where the candidates and political parties are directly responsible. The more emotional a political campaign gets, the less likely people are to vote rationally. And I think we agree that this campaign was full of emotions - mostly negative.
Sickeningly so!
It's also something inherent in two party systems or systems where the parties are divided into two big camps. My impression (judging from outside, so correct me if I'm wrong) was that during Obama's time in office, most Republicans were not interested in what is good for the people, they were mostly interested in "winning", opposing Obama just for the sake of opposing him. This attitude solves no problems and pushes the policies into the background, and for some Republicans who were against Trump, it might have backfired, because Trump is the next logical step on this way.
Total agreement.
It's less about what is good for the people/country and more about not letting the other side get what they want.
Want to get a motion put forth? The other side won't allow it, no matter how good it is, unless you allow them to piggy-back something of theirs on top of it.
It's like young children throwing tantrums on the playground because they didn't get the toy they wanted.
It prevents real progress, in my opinion.
I hope he does well and that the unrest and violence in the schools and streets of the US calm down soon.
Here's hoping!
As for the rest of what you wrote that may well be the first time (is in this thread at the very least) I have heard somebody offer up an informed opinion on Trump that was positive and/or optimistic.
I'm curious to see the responses...
Post by: Jack on 18 Nov 2016, 17:33
But this, at least to me, is good news. I hope he takes the job.
Great News On Trump Appointment (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/great-news-trump-appointments.html)
PS: Apparently hillary can still become president if trump dies before 19 Dec (electoral college vote). If that happens, and it's not unlikely, it will be the end of the united states.
Post by: dactylopus on 18 Nov 2016, 19:38
PS: Apparently hillary can still become president if trump dies before 19 Dec (electoral college vote). If that happens, and it's not unlikely, it will be the end of the united states.
That's hyperbole. The same could be said about Trump living to become president. And I'm not even sure if he needs to die. From what I have been led to believe, there are enough electoral college votes that are not bound by a winner-take-all rule to prevent Trump from becoming president as it is. Maybe I'm wrong on that, though, but I can still hope.
Anyways, I can understand that some people think Trump would be better for the economy. I don't agree, but at least I can understand this as a reason for voting in support of Trump. But the economic issues in this election pale in comparison to the social issues. And when you compare their positions on social issues, that's when the real separation comes into play. While I can see economic positions as opposing but well-intentioned, I cannot see the same in social issues. The only good intentions in hatred are completely misguided and largely irrelevant.
So in my opinion, if one was to say that they support Trump on economic issues, but disagree with his social positions, one would be ignoring the more prominent and damaging factor in favor of the lesser. To have a campaign run so much on the hatred, racism, misogyny, and xenophobia as Trump's campaign, I feel you would have to take these things into consideration. Otherwise, you're doing yourself and your country a disservice, as these issues have the potential to bring a bigger impact to America.
So, while you can say you voted for Trump over Hillary because of economic issues (or any other issues that may be a factor), you are either ignoring the greater social threat to the point of possibly damaging the nation, or you are welcoming of these threats. I'm not sure how one could see it differently, and I'd like to hear more from someone who does.
The same argument can be made about voting for Trump because he's ostensibly an outsider. Basically, what I'm saying is that there are no issues that can outweigh racism, sexism, and xenophobia.
All in all I feel the US elected a president that well represents the public image of their nation.
This is true, and it's one of the saddest things about a Trump presidency. If Trump is a reflection of the nation, the nation is in trouble.
Aside from that, I must admire your view as an outsider. It's interesting to see the view that Hillary may be more damaging to the world outside the United States. I'm not sure I agree, as Trump has actually advocated the use of nuclear weapons, and called for invasions of other nations in the past (among other things). But I can respect the concept that a Hillary presidency might be more problematic for Europe. So perhaps it's a bit self-centered for Americans to want Hillary instead of Trump (a majority of voters did, anyways). We feel that she would be better domestically (if not also internationally) by working to end systemic racism, misogyny, and xenophobia, whereas Trump would work to exacerbate it (and campaigned with a rhetoric of doing just that).
One of the things I'm most worried about is how a Trump presidency could impact the Supreme Court. In my opinion, it will only have a negative impact. I really hope I'm wrong on this, as it could be one of the lasting legacies of the election, and one of the more damaging.
Post by: Problem on 18 Nov 2016, 19:51
Quote
From what I have been led to believe, there are enough electoral college votes that are not bound by a winner-take-all rule to prevent Trump from becoming president as it is. Maybe I'm wrong on that, though, but I can still hope.Yes, this is true. Very unlikely, but it's possible that the electoral college votes for Clinton. However, I'm not sure that one should hope for that. As much as I dislike Trump... if Clinton becomes president like this, there will be riots. And the current protests will pale in comparison.
Post by: Jack on 18 Nov 2016, 21:14
But the economic issues in this election pale in comparison to the social issues.
We've really run over both sides of this too many times in this thread, but I would say this is a matter of opinion and perspective. I feel that the racism and sexism aspects have been overblown by the media, in their well documented and desperate attempts to have hillary elected. Most of it is stuff from years ago, and all of that was used by the hillary campaign rather than by his own. The impression that I got personally is that he's crass and he says stupid shit, and that they latched on to these things, and their repeated coverage of this made it seem like this is the entirety of his campaign. I mean, it's no stretch to say that the mainstream media was completely biased during this election, and showed no restraint and complete disrespect for the unwritten contract with the public. They are, in my opinion, largely to blame for him being elected.
Secondly, I very much doubt that he will be allowed to get away with any nazi-like policies. Some outlets want to conflate his expulsion of illegal immigrants with hitler's treatment of the jews (in their continuing desperate biased fashion), but it's just not the same thing. He's going to be the most closely-watched president in history, if he makes it that far, and to the public that will be invaluable. Considering that hillary's plans for syria would most likely have resulted in war with russia, I personally think that any social issues have to be pretty severe to be more important than that. At the moment pretty much all of the social issues ascribed to him are conjecture, things he might do rather than things he promised to do.
I mean, to take some of the politically incorrect things he's said about jews as an example (which I quoted days back), I think it's critical to note that he said these things to jews, and not to neo-nazis. I would personally far prefer a leader who is openly an asshole, over one who is an asshole and hides it.
BTW Darth Mandarb mentioned a page or two back that he went looking for the nuclear quote and couldn't find it. It appears to be another overblown quotation taken out of context, and repeated ad nauseum. He did say something to the effect of "all cards are on the table", which, sadly is said far too often these days (http://www.pjcvt.org/veterans-for-peace-restore-to-congress-the-power-to-declare-war/).
Post by: Khris on 18 Nov 2016, 21:53
Trump's new CIA director Pompeo wants the NSA to carry out even more mass surveillance
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article56869248.html
Jeff Sessions was deemed too racist to be a judge. He might become Trump's attorney general.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-racist-remarks_us_582cd73ae4b099512f80c0c2
(autoplay video!)
Edit:
Breaking news:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cxko6-TUUAAyyYC.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cxko8gwVEAIQf9e.jpg)
Post by: Problem on 18 Nov 2016, 22:29
Quote
At the moment pretty much all of the social issues ascribed to him are conjecture, things he might do rather than things he promised to do.You can't say that all this is conjecture and at the same time write that Clinton's election would have led to a war with Russia. This is highly speculative.
But granted, looking at statements from before his campaign, Trump appears much more moderate than during his campaign (sometimes he says the exact opposite). One could argue that this means he will change again, now that the campaign is over. And clearly, many of his supporters are much more racist or homophobic than he is. But so are people in his staff, and that makes me less optimistic. Mike Pence is a homophobe, there's no talking around that. Khris just gave two more examples. And then there's Trump's new chief strategist, probably the worst of all.
Post by: dactylopus on 19 Nov 2016, 04:19
Some outlets want to conflate his expulsion of illegal immigrants with hitler's treatment of the jews (in their continuing desperate biased fashion), but it's just not the same thing.
It is not the same thing, but it's bad enough. It's tremendously xenphobic at best, and most definitely racist. And this is an actual policy, an actual plan he has, not just charged rhetoric.
Post by: Scavenger on 19 Nov 2016, 04:32
Some outlets want to conflate his expulsion of illegal immigrants with hitler's treatment of the jews (in their continuing desperate biased fashion), but it's just not the same thing.
It is not the same thing, but it's bad enough. It's tremendously xenphobic at best, and most definitely racist. And this is an actual policy, an actual plan he has, not just charged rhetoric.
Yeah, it's not as if Hitler started by deporting religious minorities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement)whom they blamed for a war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan) before trying to exterminate them.
And even if it hadn't been done before, it's a tremendously monstrous thing to do to people. And it was even set out in his campaign plan, and he still wants to do it.
Bonus:
Quote
"Darkness is good," says Bannon, [...] "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."
Post by: Jack on 19 Nov 2016, 09:10
You can't say that all this is conjecture and at the same time write that Clinton's election would have led to a war with Russia. This is highly speculative.
Not all of it, but some of the things that people assume he will do. Deporting illegals is as concrete a promise as her no-fly zone. It's likely to happen. Most of the stuff people imagine he will do is pure conjecture though.
It is not the same thing, but it's bad enough. It's tremendously xenphobic at best, and most definitely racist. And this is an actual policy, an actual plan he has, not just charged rhetoric.
I disagree. By law they are not supposed to be there, and they are taking jobs that real citizens could do. It has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism. It has everything to do with enforcing the law and reclaiming jobs. As long as there are legal ways to become a citizen, I don't see a problem with deporting illegals.
Post by: Grim on 19 Nov 2016, 10:08
Talking about controlling ILLEGAL immigration isn't anything new or horrible. It's how things always worked.
Post by: Khris on 19 Nov 2016, 12:22
they are taking jobs that real citizens could doAre you actually being serious?
Post by: Scavenger on 19 Nov 2016, 14:16
I disagree. By law they are not supposed to be there, and they are taking jobs that real citizens could do. It has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism. It has everything to do with enforcing the law and reclaiming jobs. As long as there are legal ways to become a citizen, I don't see a problem with deporting illegals.
By law you can treat a prisoner like a slave for labour purposes as well, doesn't mean it's moral or ethical or right.
Becoming a legal immigrant is almost impossible for a lot of people. (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-don%E2%80%99t-they-just-get-line) The process is expensive and most of the time they aren't eligable. For some reason poverty in their home country is not considered a valid reason for immigrating, so you'd just be sending them back to live in poverty and probably starve to death.
You can also not round up and deport 11 million people, that's impossible. You can't even be sure who is an illegal immigrant without costly background checks on each and every person, or racial profiling. And let's face it, they'd just use racial profiling and try and deport latinx US citizens.
It has everything to do with xenophobia, by the way, because you're trying to exclude people you see as an outsider from a country, even though countries have pretty arbitrary borders and you should really try and not let anyone die or suffer. If you weren't xenophobic, you'd see them as a person before a foreign national.
Post by: Danvzare on 19 Nov 2016, 15:31
You can also not round up and deport 11 million people, that's impossible. You can't even be sure who is an illegal immigrant without costly background checks on each and every person, or racial profiling. And let's face it, they'd just use racial profiling and try and deport latinx US citizens.And let's not forget the clusterfuck that is the US immigration system, which make it absolutely impossible to stop the US from deporting you even if you're an actual citizen.
Everyone talks about deporting illegal immigrants, but it's never just the illegal immigrants that get deported, it's the legal immigrants and people born in that country that get deported too.
And when you're a US citizen who has been deported to Mexico, Mexico will then deport you to another country, which will deport you to yet another country, and so on and so on.
You'd have to be a horrible person to overlook how many lives mass deportation has ruined.
Post by: Snarky on 19 Nov 2016, 16:10
Post by: dactylopus on 19 Nov 2016, 16:26
It has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.
I think it has at least a little bit to do with xenophobia and racism. Maybe it's not entirely racist, but saying it's not racist at all is the complete opposite viewpoint and neither extreme is 100% accurate. But I still hold that it's xenophobic.
Even if the system worked perfectly, you'd have parents of American children being deported, not to mention kids who were brought to the US when they were little and have never known any other country.
This is one of the biggest issues. What we really need is a good path to citizenship for people like this. Bring them into the system and get more of them paying taxes.
Post by: Babar on 19 Nov 2016, 18:32
This is one of the biggest issues. What we really need is a good path to citizenship for people like this. Bring them into the system and get more of them paying taxes.I had heard a claim about this recently, so I googled the exact sequence of words 'illegal immigrants pay more taxes', and as the top result, quoted in a box within the google page itself (as it sometimes does), was the following:
Quote
Donald Trump may not have paid federal income taxes for 20 years, but the undocumented immigrants he rails against certainly have, according to the head of a Latino civic engagement organization. ... Undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion of taxes every single year. They pay their taxes.Oct 2, 2016The actual article goes into a lot more detail, and yeah, there are illegal immigrants who are not paying taxes, but it really is quite amazing, that there are illegal immigrants who are paying taxes for benefits that they themselves cannot avail. The contrast the article made in that paragraph to Trump, who proudly insinuated(?) that he had not paid income tax for 20 years is pretty funny :D.
How much do undocumented immigrants pay in taxes? | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/.../how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/)
And yeah, plans for a muslim registry, which apparently are in discussion now would absolutely would be racist as well as xenophobic (and yes, racist, despite the "BUT MUSLIMS ARE NOT A RACE!" counterclaim that so often comes up. The registry would be for immigrants from muslim countries, so "brown people". And I don't think someone having converted to Christianity would suddenly make it okay for them to skip being registered), so it isn't conjecture, or stuff that he said years ago, or stuff that he just said crassly to be more populist.
Anyhow, a bit off-topic, or maybe not, but it is very interesting to me how in recent years as a response to accusations of racism towards a third party, some people bring up "We have to be more tolerant of peoples' differing opinions!"
Even in this election, part of the post-election conversation was "It was so obvious that Trump won! You shut all these people out! What did you expect would happen! You need dialogue!", exemplified by that irritatingly jarring fake interview video that kept autoplaying a couple pages back.
And that's interesting, because my understanding of most responses to racism have always been:
1) If it is a criminal offense, report it
2) Otherwise, if it is from an unrelated or not closely related party (some other group), you exclaim the wrongness openly, mock it perhaps, so that society as a whole would not come under the impression that it is okay, and the people would hopefully shut up with embarrassment- like most people were doing with Trump's supporters
3) If it is someone you know, and could possibly influence (your kid?), explain to them in no uncertain terms what they did is wrong
4) If it is out of your control (your parents, grandparents, relatives), ignore it, or passively show your displeasure
These people are suggesting a third option, which is "dialogue". I am very curious how this dialogue would go. For every racist person, you'd introduce them to a nice person from the race they were racist towards?
Post by: dactylopus on 19 Nov 2016, 21:03
Post by: Mandle on 20 Nov 2016, 01:39
Here's what actor Brandon Dixon said during the curtain call to Mike Pence, who attended a performance of "Hamilton":
"Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us here at 'Hamilton: An American Musical.' We really do. We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us."
And here are Trump's twitter responses:
"Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen!"
"The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!"
It's completely unimaginable to me that, in anyone's mind, such a resprectfully and politely worded statement could be perceived as "harassment". What's he gonna do if Duterte calls him a "son-of-a-bitch"? Fly over to the Philippines and punch him in the nose?
I guess they shouldn't have given the big baby his twitter account rattle back.
Post by: Jack on 20 Nov 2016, 01:47
Are you actually being serious?
Yes I'm being serious, and no I don't expect americans to be happy being paid the slave wages that illegals get, or live in the conditions that they do.
And while I don't believe that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay when others have to earn their citizenship, and feel great antagonism towards people that have children as leverage, some good points were raised on mass deportation. I don't think that the issues benefit from being conflated with racism and sexism, when the real problem is stupidity.
To step back from it and get all philosophical for a moment, I really wish that people didn't feel like they had to resort to a crude solution like trump to get out of the bad situation that we're all in at the moment. But people as a whole seem to have large deficiencies when dealing rationally with politics, because all barry has to do is smile and everyone goes weak in the knees.
Anyway, more Washington's Blog: Installing a Torture Fan at CIA (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/installing-torture-fan-cia.html)
It's a really complex situation. On one hand trump is starting to make good on some of his worst policies (torture in this case), while on the other, the establishment's attempt to steal the election for hillary seems to have been in earnest (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/what-to-do-about-fake-news.html). I have no doubt that they can bring trump in line with their murderous agenda. He has a family, after all. If that happens, we will have the worst of both worlds.
Post by: Snarky on 20 Nov 2016, 07:58
the establishment's attempt to steal the election for hillary seems to have been in earnest (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/what-to-do-about-fake-news.html).
Again with quoting sources that don't even remotely say what you allege they say!
(I would also suggest that it's not so much a "really complex situation" as it is your worldview encountering reality for the first time in a while.)
Post by: Atelier on 20 Nov 2016, 09:47
And yeah, plans for a muslim registry, which apparently are in discussion now would absolutely would be racist as well as xenophobic (and yes, racist, despite the "BUT MUSLIMS ARE NOT A RACE!" counterclaim that so often comes up. The registry would be for immigrants from muslim countries, so "brown people". And I don't think someone having converted to Christianity would suddenly make it okay for them to skip being registered)
I see the 'muslims are not a race' counterclaim as entirely valid. Far too often I see people unable to sever the race of a person and their culture and ideology. They are absolutely entirely severable. It astounds me how people continue to have problems with that concept - your race is biologically what you are, your culture is socially what you do. I am certainly not a racist but I am proudly a 'culturalist'. Some cultures and ways of thinking are simply better and more wholesome than others, and I will stubbornly never change my mind on that. (I'm subsuming religion within culture for these purposes).
Discrimination based on what one genetically is (I won't hire him because he's black) is what racism is. Saying you dislike Muslims is not, because specific instantiations of religion and culture is not genetic. Those systems are abstract counterfactuals and I think can therefore be legitimately scrutinised and discriminated against.
So, in theory we see that one's race and one's culture are completely separable. But obviously it rarely works this way - a white European is more likely to be a Christian than a Muslim; and if you're born in Saudi Arabia you're probably a Muslim. Yet this distribution is just an accident of history. After the invention of agriculture human populations have necessarily been relatively geographically static, meaning divergent cultures have grown in areas, which we attribute to the race of that area. But importantly the race is not the cause of the culture, and thus those claiming that an attack on the culture necessitates an attack on the race are mistaken.
Babar, you seem to have fallen for the same flawed thinking that we see in the uneducated racist (I know that you are not racist, obviously). Instead of seeing the ban on the 'Muslim country', you assume that that means 'country where brown people live'. I do not see it that way because I'm not fixated with race. Having said all that, I do agree with you up to the point that you can prove that there is some 'ulterior motive' for Trump's ban on people coming from Muslim countries; that he is not concerned with their faith, but the colour of their skin. False dichotomy flag: it is actually probable that Trump's reasons are both their faith and colour of their skin. However, we do not see him calling for a ban on sub-saharan Africans, Indians, Asians, etc. So I strongly suspect his primary motive is indeed what he says.
By the way, to preempt anyone who attacks me for saying that some cultures are simply better than others (that I need to "be more tolerant and open"), I'd like to quote dactylopus:
I don't think we need to be tolerant of other people's views if those views seek to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual preference, or other such minority groups. We can be tolerant of their other views, sure, but there should never be tolerance of discrimination. It is abhorrent.
God forbid that some cultures openly discriminate on the basis of all of those things!
Edit:
Forgot to mention re the case of the 'Christian convert' coming from a Muslim country: if it is a wholesale ban on immigration or travel from a discrete list of countries (which I believe it what Trump called for, apologies if not) where Islam is the dominant religion and/or the law is based on sharia, then it leads me to believe the Christian also would not be allowed to enter the US from that country.
Post by: Problem on 20 Nov 2016, 10:11
Quote
Saying you dislike Muslims is not, because specific instantiations of religion and culture is not genetic. Those systems are abstract counterfactuals and I think can therefore be legitimately scrutinised and discriminated against.
Quote
Some cultures and ways of thinking are simply better and more wholesome than others, and I will stubbornly never change my mind on that.
But even this could never be the base of disliking or even banning Muslims, because that would imply that they all think the same way, which is just nonsense. Add to that that many people are born into their religion, and you don't just change this like underwear. So judging individuals based on their race and judging them by their religion is not that much different, unless you clearly go into the different sub-groups. Otherwise you'd be drawing a direct link between the formal membership of a religion to one's character, and you'd put a single label on millions of different people, which may not technically be racist, but of the same quality.
Post by: Jack on 20 Nov 2016, 10:18
Again with quoting sources that don't even remotely say what you allege they say!
If there's someone else who doesn't get my implication, let me know and I'll clarify.
Post by: Babar on 20 Nov 2016, 10:33
Discrimination based on what one genetically is (I won't hire him because he's black) is what racism is. Saying you dislike Muslims is not, because specific instantiations of religion and culture is not genetic. Those systems are abstract counterfactuals and I think can therefore be legitimately scrutinised and discriminated against.See how you switched the actions there? Discrimination based on what one genetically is is what racism is, sure. What is discrimination (not simply saying you dislike them) based on what religion the person was born into called? Or heck, even the religion they converted into?
Is that as okay as "Saying you dislike them"?
Is it okay to discriminate against the worse cultures?
What about the idea of forcing people of a specific culture to have to register with the government, perhaps wear an patch on their clothes so they could be easily identified, and be forcefully interred in the case of a war with people of that culture?
As you yourself zeroed in on the point we are discussing at hand, the DISCRIMINATION of a people, so in that context, yes, "Muslim is not a race" isn't a valid counterclaim at all. That is the exact reason I mentioned the Christian convert (or heck, even born christian in a muslim country) point. Not because I was curious as to what would happen to them, but to show that in the end, it isn't their religion that is being targetted, rather their ethnic background. Another example: so far, all iterations of the "Muslim registry" idea I've read about are for immigrants, not the local population who may have converted. Not saying we won't get there, of course.
The problem here is that you can't "see" religion, so it is easier to go with alternates: colour of skin, type of clothes being worn, etc. Which is why you sometimes hear on islamophobic attacks on Sikhs as well. So essentially, it IS racism.
Post by: Atelier on 20 Nov 2016, 11:00
And yes, one cannot change their religion like they change their clothes - especially not if they live in a country where this is culturally impossible. Do you see the circularity of these oppressions?
See how you switched the actions there? Discrimination based on what one genetically is is what racism is, sure. What is discrimination (not simply saying you dislike them) based on what religion the person was born into called? Or heck, even the religion they converted into? Is that as okay as "Saying you dislike them"?
Sorry yeah, I did switch the actions, but only accidentally. I don't think it matters because we are talking about a ban on Muslims which could be compared to a ban on blacks. Both are discriminatory but one is based on culture and one on race.
Edit: I don't want to get hung up on the distinction between discrimination and dislike, but just to add that if somebody said they 'disliked' blacks they would certainly be called a racist.
What about the idea of forcing people of a specific culture to have to register with the government, perhaps wear an patch on their clothes so they could be easily identified, and be forcefully interred in the case of a war with people of that culture?
Absolutely not what I've been saying - massive straw-man, par for the course in this thread. (I saw your post pre-edit where you insinuated I'd be fine with that).
Quote
As you yourself zeroed in on the point we are discussing at hand, the DISCRIMINATION of a people, so in that context, yes, "Muslim is not a race" isn't a valid counterclaim at all. That is the exact reason I mentioned the Christian convert (or heck, even born christian in a muslim country) point. Not because I was curious as to what would happen to them, but to show that in the end, it isn't their religion that is being targetted, rather their ethnic background. Another example: so far, all iterations of the "Muslim registry" idea I've read about are for immigrants, not the local population who may have converted. Not saying we won't get there, of course.
You're essentially saying a wholesale ban on people travelling from a country equates to a ban on the ethnic group, simply because that is where they live on the planet. But as I've said, the ethnic background and the culture of those people is an anthropological accident, and the two are linked only by virtue of how cultures develop and people settle. The Muslim registry is obviously going to be targeted at immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, because that is where the majority of the world's Muslims are from!
By the way, I'd just like to reiterate to everybody (because I know that someone will eventually claim this), I'm not at all condoning or wishing for such a ban. As usual I'm talking theory here, not making value judgments.
Quote
The problem here is that you can't "see" religion, so it is easier to go with alternates: colour of skin, type of clothes being worn, etc. Which is why you sometimes hear on islamophobic attacks on Sikhs as well. So essentially, it IS racism.
Oh for sure, I completely agree. That's the common uneducated racist that I described. I'm just saying that personally I'm able to sever race and culture absolutely, and wish more people did the same.
Post by: Babar on 20 Nov 2016, 11:21
Sorry yeah, I did switch the actions, but only accidentally. I don't think it matters because we are talking about a ban on Muslims which could be compared to a ban on blacks. Both are discriminatory but one is based on culture and one on race.But considering the difference between discriminate and dislike (one is passive, the other is active), you can see my probing for clarification (as in the following quote)?
I didn't say you had said that. I was just taking what you HAD said (or at least what I understood from what you wrote), that it is okay to discriminate based on religion, and shifting it to an extreme to give an example.What about the idea of forcing people of a specific culture to have to register with the government, perhaps wear an patch on their clothes so they could be easily identified, and be forcefully interred in the case of a war with people of that culture?
Absolutely not what I've been saying - massive straw-man, par for the course in this thread.
You're essentially saying a wholesale ban on people travelling from a country equates to a ban on the ethnic group, simply because that is where they live on the planet. But as I've said, the ethnic background and the culture of those people is an anthropological accident, and the two are linked only by virtue of how cultures develop and people settle. The Muslim registry is obviously going to be targeted at immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, because that is where the majority of the world's Muslims are from!But all these things are linked. "Scientific" racists in the 19th used physical attributes, geographic location and culture as an explanation as to why Africans, for example, were subhuman. Heck, you know, there is no "black gene" or "white gene" or such, no combination of DNA that can give you "This person is black", so there is the idea that race as a whole is purely a social (or even cultural) construct!
Post by: Atelier on 20 Nov 2016, 11:37
Quote
But considering the difference between discriminate and dislike (one is passive, the other is active), you can see my probing for clarification
Yes, I welcome the clarification but it's entirely irrelevant because we are talking about actual cultural discrimination (ban on Muslims).
Quote
I didn't say you had said that. I was just taking what you HAD said (or at least what I understood from what you wrote), that it is okay to discriminate based on religion, and shifting it to an extreme to give an example.
I saw your post pre-edit where you insinuated I'd be fine with that (something along the lines of 'if you think some cultures are better than others then I assume you'd be alright with people registering with the government... etc')
Quote
Heck, you know, there is no "black gene" or "white gene" or such, no combination of DNA that can give you "This person is black", so there is the idea that race as a whole is purely a social (or even cultural) construct!
What? That is literally how human genetics works. There are clear phenotypic and genetic differences between humans which we can classify as races relative to one another. If there weren't we would all be homogenous. These differences are biological, not cultural.
Post by: Khris on 20 Nov 2016, 13:58
Yes I'm being serious, and no I don't expect americans to be happy being paid the slave wages that illegals get, or live in the conditions that they do.I have always assumed that illegal immigrants mostly get jobs that citizens don't want. So your statement that they're "taking jobs that real citizens could do", while not factually wrong if taken at face value, sounded like you're implying they're taking those jobs away from citizen that absolutely would do them.
Was that your intended meaning or not?
Edit:
Also this: Mike Pence's Hateful Laws Almost Kept Me From My Dying Wife (http://time.com/4576513/mike-pences-hateful-laws/)
Post by: Snarky on 20 Nov 2016, 14:02
Post by: Jack on 20 Nov 2016, 14:49
I have always assumed that illegal immigrants mostly get jobs that citizens don't want. So your statement that they're "taking jobs that real citizens could do", while not factually wrong if taken at face value, sounded like you're implying they're taking those jobs away from citizen that absolutely would do them.
Was that your intended meaning or not?
Well, I think at this point a lot of americans would jump at those jobs, even with their current work conditions and pay. But the basis of what I was saying (not implied), is that companies that exploit illegal labour get away with subjecting them to these conditions because they have no legal foot to stand on. If the companies could no longer do this they would have to go back to treating their work force with more respect. There will of course be a decrease in the number of available jobs because of this, but a lot of these jobs need doing regardless, so it will result in more jobs for americans.
Post by: Khris on 24 Nov 2016, 22:04
Also, meet the new secretary of education! Wheeeee.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/betsy-devos-trumps-big-donor-education-secretary
Post by: InCreator on 25 Nov 2016, 10:04
I have always assumed that illegal immigrants mostly get jobs that citizens don't want. So your statement that they're "taking jobs that real citizens could do", while not factually wrong if taken at face value, sounded like you're implying they're taking those jobs away from citizen that absolutely would do them.
Was that your intended meaning or not?
It's probably more about de-valuating those jobs. Or rather, their pay.
So those aren't jobs "real" citizens do not want, but jobs they wouldn't do at offered pay rate. If immigrants will accept any payment, it's unclear if they're exercising or instead, obstructing the way free market works.
And if they're immigrants, from national viewpoint, it's the latter.
Post by: Andail on 13 Jun 2017, 18:18
&t=57s
I think this is scary as shit. I've never seen anything like it in a political context in a modern, developed nation. This is the kind of stuff Idi Amin pulled.
Post by: Mandle on 13 Jun 2017, 18:48
If this was The Rocky Horror Picture Show and everyone would suddenly stand up and start singing an ironic ballard on the existentialism of humanity, or if it were a scene from Dr. Stangelove, then I would applaud it...
But I think this may actually be an attempt at real world politics, and that scares the shit out of me as much as it did you...
This is not just post-fact, post-truth reality. This is something even Orwell would have thought too purple to put in 1984...
Jesus...just...fucking Jesus...
Post by: Snarky on 13 Jun 2017, 18:58
So yes, it's stomach-turning and Dear Leader-y, but that is just life now.
As a therapeutic measure, I've been playing bingo with my little prediction from right after the election:
Having become President and commander of the armed forces, Trump's ego swells to even more grandiose proportions. He is hooked on the high of adulation, and responds to any criticism or attack with uncontrolled fury. Having alienated much of the political establishment (particularly the foreign policy establishment), his administration is short on expertise and full of extremists, sycophants and charlatans. His undisciplined, impulsive and downright foolish words and actions, as well as the missteps of the other unqualified administration members, cause numerous international and economic crises, to which his instinct is to respond with aggression and escalation. Hopefully his easy manipulability (just flatter him) and more rational actors in other countries manage to stop these crises from sparking wider war.
Encouraged by Trump's lack of support for American alliances, Russia, China and other states step up confrontation with their neighboring countries. South Korea and Japan respond by rearming, which may include a nuclear weapons program. Other East Asian states make concessions, resigning themselves to increased Chinese influence. In the former communist states in Europe there's a decrease in faith in all the institutions and ideals of "the West": EU, NATO, liberal democracy. NATO continues to weaken and fracture (not just because of Trump, but also by the erosion of democracy in countries like Poland, Hungary and Turkey), and with no reassurance of common defense, individual countries start to arm up and pursue separate defense strategies. There's a worldwide rise in militarism and nationalism.
The US abandons many of its treaties, including the Iran treaty (so Iran resumes its nuclear weapons program), NAFTA (causing a loss in trade with Mexico that weakens the economy), the Paris climate change treaty (setting back any effective action to stop the ongoing global environmental disaster), and more. "Obamacare" is only partially abolished, but millions of Americans do lose their health care. Deep tax cuts lead to giant deficits, and to cuts in government programs and staffing. Anti-trade policies and attempts to "get tough" in trade negotiations with China and other countries lead to retributory policies that may escalate into a trade war. Together with the uncertainty caused by Trump's erratic behavior, this causes the economy to plunge into another recession.
On immigration, Trump's signature policies (the wall, deportation) are watered down or only carried out to a symbolic extent; most of his supporters don't notice, but some hardliners decry him as a traitor. In matters of social justice (police violence etc.), a Trump administration is unsympathetic and tin-eared, and this leads to increased social unrest. Killings both of cops and of black activists, by disturbed individuals who have been radicalized online, increase.
Blaming Muslims as a group for jihadist terrorism, Trump continues to nourish Islamophobia in America. Hate crimes against Muslims (and those who can be mistaken for Muslims) rise. Marginalized in this way, more Muslims are in fact radicalized into violence, while a larger group is drawn towards anti-Trump liberal politics. In the Muslim world, the narrative that the west is at war with Islam gains increased acceptance, delegitimizing American values and influences and strengthening extremists and authoritarian governments alike.
Coming into office as a sexual predator with a long list of scandals, a track record of fraud and illegality, not having isolated himself from his business interests, and with ties to organized crime, international fugitives and foreign oligarchs and dictators, Trump's administration quickly shows itself to be the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in memory, with Trump blatantly using the government to enrich himself. These scandals get considerable play in the media, but the GOP Congress is too craven and partisan to take any action to censure or rein him in, at least at first.
Already loathed and feared by half the country, Trump's shtick wears thin very quickly even for many who voted for him. His approval ratings fall to somewhere around the George W. Bush low point of 25%. Resentful and vindictive, he lashes out at his enemies and tries to use the powers of his office to get even with them. This leads to illegalities and abuses that dwarf Watergate.
... So, all around a fun few years ahead.
So far it's going pretty good (for my powers of prognostication, not for the US or the world, obviously). My predictions for how Trump would act have been pretty spot on (give or take which precise policy positions he's flip-flopped on, and I don't put much trust in his policies tomorrow being consistent with the ones today), while some of my expectations for how others would react to that were a little further off. So far. It's still early goings, of course. I didn't anticipate that the GOP would have quite so much trouble instituting policy, for one thing.
Post by: Ali on 14 Jun 2017, 02:09
Post by: Mandle on 14 Jun 2017, 04:01
It's like a school play, but with old, white morons.
Hahahahahahaha! (laugh)
I don't know if you do political humour in your stand-up bits Ali, but that could be a classic bit in the right hands!
Post by: Gurok on 14 Jun 2017, 04:26
It's like a school play, but with old, white morons.
To paraphrase you, Ali, the key word in this sentence is 'white'. Practise what you preach. Don't bring race into this.
I thought it was a good cabinet meeting. Everyone was respectful, cheerful and optimistic about the future -- more than I can say about the general commentary in this thread. I particularly liked the CIA director's quip about the media.
Post by: Scavenger on 14 Jun 2017, 05:06
To paraphrase you, Ali, the key word in this sentence is 'white'. Practise what you preach. Don't bring race into this.
Sorry, race is already inextricably linked with politics since the creation of the white identity, which is a political construct. To ignore that is to ignore a tool used by unscrupulous politicians to excuse awful policy. Ali wasn't the one who brought race into the discussion. It was the people who prop up whiteness.
I was thinking about reviving this thread for a long time, but... so many ridiculous things happened. I couldn't pick one thing to show, and it was depressing to think that people would invariably excuse the atrocious behaviour of Trump and his far right sycophants.
Post by: Mandle on 14 Jun 2017, 08:15
Post by: Problem on 14 Jun 2017, 09:27
What really surprises me though... was it really the first cabinet meeting? How long has he been president now, 5 months? (wtf)
Post by: Mandle on 14 Jun 2017, 09:47
Post by: Ali on 14 Jun 2017, 10:00
Post by: Mandle on 14 Jun 2017, 10:15
Could everyone PLEASE not try to bring race into the room full of rich white blokes?
I knew it! This is Dr. Strangelove!
"You can't fight in here. This is the war room!"
Post by: Gurok on 14 Jun 2017, 12:47
Could everyone PLEASE not try to bring race into the room full of rich white blokes? Let's focus on the issues - that is not how grown ups talk. It's flipping insane.
There are a couple of different ways you can react when caught out. You can be gracious and move on, or you can double down on your position. I honestly thought you were better than that.
As for how grown ups talk, perhaps you're hanging around the wrong grown ups. It's not acceptable, at least in the company I keep, to point out the X morons (where X is a race) for any reason.
Post by: Mandle on 14 Jun 2017, 12:56
that is not how grown ups talk. It's flipping insane.
As for how grown ups talk, perhaps you're hanging around the wrong grown ups.
Gurok, I think Ali might have been referring to the way the people talk in the video.
Post by: LimpingFish on 14 Jun 2017, 22:49
Post by: Ali on 15 Jun 2017, 01:57
As for how grown ups talk, perhaps you're hanging around the wrong grown ups. It's not acceptable, at least in the company I keep, to point out the X morons (where X is a race) for any reason.
I see no reason to be anything other than angry and flippant when addressing Trump. But our of respect for these hallowed forums, I would like to clarify:
I didn't mean that you were being childish, Gurok. I think you're wrong, but your tone is perfectly reasonable. I meant that Trump's cabinet were speaking in a disconcertingly facile, infantile manner.
The reason I'm not graciously backing down is that I don't believe I have been caught out. I didn't say 'white' by accident. I said it on purpose. They are white, and their whiteness is pretty of this story.
If Trump had filled his cabinet with black women, you can be sure I would have remarked on that. It is not racist to acknowledge race.
I'm the whitest man in England, so I'm not going to get into a debate about "reverse racism". They are white and they are morons. It follows that they are white morons. If they weren't white morons, they would not have been cast in this ludicrous pantomime.
Post by: Gurok on 15 Jun 2017, 03:59
As for how grown ups talk, perhaps you're hanging around the wrong grown ups. It's not acceptable, at least in the company I keep, to point out the X morons (where X is a race) for any reason.
I see no reason to be anything other than angry and flippant when addressing Trump. But our of respect for these hallowed forums, I would like to clarify:
I didn't mean that you were being childish, Gurok. I think you're wrong, but your tone is perfectly reasonable. I meant that Trump's cabinet were speaking in a disconcertingly facile, infantile manner.
I had assumed you were referring to the people in Trump's cabinet meeting. My comment was a general one about how grown ups talk.
The reason I'm not graciously backing down is that I don't believe I have been caught out. I didn't say 'white' by accident. I said it on purpose. They are white, and their whiteness is pretty of this story.
If Trump had filled his cabinet with black women, you can be sure I would have remarked on that. It is not racist to acknowledge race.
I'm the whitest man in England, so I'm not going to get into a debate about "reverse racism". They are white and they are morons. It follows that they are white morons. If they weren't white morons, they would not have been cast in this ludicrous pantomime.
When I said I was paraphrasing you, I meant it. You criticised Jack earlier in the thread:
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=54140.msg636547593#msg636547593
I thought it was a valid criticism, but I also thought you were more principled at that point.
Perhaps you could explain to me how you think that woman and corrupt are perfectly separable, but white and moron are not.
Post by: Scavenger on 15 Jun 2017, 06:36
Perhaps you could explain to me how you think that woman and corrupt are perfectly separable, but white and moron are not.
OK, I can answer this one.
Whiteness grants you certain privileges in society. One of these, especially if you're white, is to be allowed to be mediocre, or even completely awful, and still get away with a whole lot more stupid decisions than any person of colour. People of colour are automatically put under more rigorous scrutiny about their competency, and lack of competency in an individual will be used to paint the entire race, in the public perception, as that, when really there is no significant difference between anyone, based on their skin colour. This same thing shields white people from the same criticism, because they are part of the in-group, and society is automatically more forgiving to the in-group.
This same reasoning holds for the male/female divide as well - Hillary Clinton is no more corrupt than many other given politicians, and is demonstrably less corrupt than Trump. But hold it - she is put under more scrutiny because she is a woman.
The fact that Trump even holds office now is in no small part because of his whiteness. He IS a moron. He appoints morons to his cabinet, who are woefully underqualified to do anything. The vast majority of his cabinet positions haven't even been chosen by him. He golfs (almost) every weekend while one of his major criticisms of Obama was the frequency of his golfing. He costs the taxpayer millions in security because of his traveling and keeping the first lady in Trump Tower, he leaks classified knowledge at his pleasure palace, he kept his business and is making policy just to profit from it, he attacks the press at every opportunity while cosying up with Brietbart....
... and yet he hasn't been impeached yet. Why is this? Why could this possibly be? How could people so eagerly let him stomp all over the constitution and the very fabric of American governance itself, while they let the GOP get away with blocking Obama at every turn, let them shut down the government in a hissy fit over socialised healthcare, and then attempt to make backroom deals to strip it away from people anyway?
Why could that possibly be??
In short, you can't just replace woman with man, or black with white, and say "look how sexist/racist YOU'RE being" because the political constructs of gender and race are not symmetrical and identical, they have meanings and weight beyond just being an identifying tag.
Post by: Danvzare on 15 Jun 2017, 11:20
The people who said not to bring race into the discussion, were the ones who accidentally made the discussion about race by saying that! 8-0
That is just hilarious. (laugh)
Post by: Blondbraid on 15 Jun 2017, 11:45
Holy crap.Whenever someone says race, gender or background doesn't matter, I think of this Monty Python quote:
The people who said not to bring race into the discussion, were the ones who accidentally made the discussion about race by saying that! 8-0
That is just hilarious. (laugh)
(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11113/111131592/4682420-b0ccf5dcf41e3a3f4b63e290bdb0dc465715aa6bbc8154f4a399d3079654f08f.jpg)
Post by: Ali on 15 Jun 2017, 15:07
Post by: Mandle on 15 Jun 2017, 17:59
Whenever someone says race, gender or background doesn't matter, I think of this Monty Python quote:
Whenever in doubt: Monty Python is always right! There are no exceptions!
I'm not being sarcastic: Monty Python has the 2nd most balanced outlook on humanity that I have ever seen (The 1st is Douglas Adams, but he was technically a member of and writer for Python for a short while until he got fed up with Graham Chapman being constantly drunk). The fact that both Python and Adams also happen to be hilarious just goes to show that we can only know our true nature by poking fun at it...
And Mr. Trump is providing so much material for doing just that...
If only he had a sense of humour about himself...
Post by: Mandle on 15 Jun 2017, 18:00
In conclusion, kill whitey.
Potential 3rd most balnced outlook on humanity...
Post by: Andail on 16 Jun 2017, 08:30
However, that also wasn't the main issue with the cabinet meeting. What's truly frightening is that a group of experienced, professional politicians so readily accepted to be reduced to self-humiliating sycophants, ignoring how ridiculous they seem to an observer. This means that Trump has created an atmosphere where anyone working in his vicinity must surrender all dignity and integrity, even as it borders and goes beyond parody. You couldn't script satire more unrealistic than what we just witnessed.
It's not supposed to look like that, Gurok. Trump isn't an emperor - they're not there to serve and please him, they're there to serve the American people. Even if Trump was as successful as he himself claims (another Kim Jong Il-inspired moment), which probably doesn't stand to scrutiny, that scene still wouldn't be justified. Maybe after eight years of constant success, of bringing unity and prosperity to a nation, as a retirement celebration, maybe then you can allow yourself that kind of self-gratulation. Not when work has hardly begun.
Post by: Snarky on 16 Jun 2017, 09:38
What makes it extraordinary is that this was a televised cabinet meeting, with ALL the cabinet members taking turns expressing the same sentiment, and most of them making sure to target their gratitude and praise towards Trump as a person. There's also the fact that this happened in the middle of revelations about how Comey and others were fired after refusing to promise the sort of personal loyalty Trump demanded. And there's the contrast with Trump's own remarks: while his minions all talk about lucky and humbled they are, he ludicrously brags about having achieved more than any previous president ("with a few exceptions"). The whole exercise is so transparently an ego-stroking affair, and the cabinet members come off as toadying courtiers more than public servants.
Post by: Gurok on 16 Jun 2017, 11:39
Gurok: Just pointing out that there is an imbalance in how race and gender is represented in a government isn't itself racism, sexism or in any way a part of the problem. I don't quite see how you can arrive at that opinion.
I don't really have that opinion.
I have a problem with someone bringing race into an insult or advocating killing a particular racial group.
I don't have a problem with someone mentioning race or gender per se.
My point was that "white morons" was dangerously close to "corrupt females".
It's not supposed to look like that, Gurok. Trump isn't an emperor - they're not there to serve and please him, they're there to serve the American people.
I think this is an exaggeration and perhaps a little reactionary in a political environment that's pushing a more nationalist agenda. It's not supposed to look like that to you because you don't want things to be that way.
I don't agree with a lot of Trump's agenda (walls, trade wars), but I also don't think there's a hulking right-wing behemoth coming to destroy us all. I certainly don't think Trump resembles a dictator or an emperor.
I would say that Trump has had quite a few misfires, but also made real progress, and the people underneath him truly believe in his leadership.
They have the right to remain optimistic. I think they're genuine, but I can see how someone might think that a person couldn't be genuine and hold opposing beliefs to his or her own.
Post by: Mandle on 16 Jun 2017, 16:18
I have a problem with someone bringing race into an insult or advocating killing a particular racial group.
I think that may have been shock-jock humour, and not an actual call to kill all white people...
Post by: Gurok on 16 Jun 2017, 16:37
I have a problem with someone bringing race into an insult or advocating killing a particular racial group.
I think that may have been shock-jock humour, and not an actual call to kill all white people...
I'm confused, Mandle. "Balanced outlook on humanity" or "ha ha, funny shock-jock humour"?
Post by: Mandle on 16 Jun 2017, 16:43
I'm confused, Mandle. "Balanced outlook on humanity" or "ha ha, funny shock-jock humour"?
My "Balanced outlook on humanity" comment was also a joke responding to his.
Of course "Kill whitey" is not a balanced outlook...
Not every post in here has to be 100% serious, right? We're all still buds just talking, right?
Nobody is taking this too seriously, right?
Post by: Scavenger on 16 Jun 2017, 17:52
My point was that "white morons" was dangerously close to "corrupt females".
No, they aren't. They are nothing alike. I've already explained why. You can't just make mad libs out of identity groups, especially in a political context.
I would say that Trump has had quite a few misfires, but also made real progress, and the people underneath him truly believe in his leadership.
They have the right to remain optimistic. I think they're genuine, but I can see how someone might think that a person couldn't be genuine and hold opposing beliefs to his or her own.
How many mistakes, missteps, security breaches, constitutional violations, attacks on minorities, systematic removals of people's healthcare, before you finally say he needs to be removed from office? Why do you give him so much slack when in just a few months he's done so much wrong? Honestly, what has he done right???
Post by: Ponch on 17 Jun 2017, 00:17
Honestly, what has he done right???He finally got the American government to stop preparing for the Y2K bug (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/trump-orders-government-to-stop-work-on-y2k-bug-17-years-later-20170615.html). :=
Post by: Ali on 17 Jun 2017, 01:17
Post by: dactylopus on 17 Jun 2017, 06:15
For the avoidance of doubt, when I said "kill whitey," I meant that white people should die.
Oh yeah, oh yeah... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bh9xQ0i2bw)
Post by: milkanannan on 27 Jun 2017, 01:42
Post by: Scavenger on 26 Jul 2017, 16:57
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFqju1jUIAA5sPc.jpg)
Not to mention trying to repeal a law that allows a lot of people to have health insurance. It's not perfect, but it's better than what Trump is offering, which is tax breaks for the wealthy and death for the poor. And the fact that his administration doesn't have even half of it's positions filled. And the fact that everyone he's hiring is a wall street rich kid. And the fact that he thought Obamacare was around for 17 years, proving he can't even do basic math. And the fact that he wants to build a pointless border wall, that's transparent so that drugs don't fall on people. OH, and not to mention the treason his administration committed and openly admitted to.
Why does anyone still support this wretched bloated rotten tangerine again? I can see zero reason to.
Post by: Khris on 26 Jul 2017, 19:38
It's basically true, and it gets funnier and more sad the longer you think about it.
Post by: milkanannan on 27 Jul 2017, 05:19
Why does anyone still support this wretched bloated rotten tangerine again? I can see zero reason to.
I guess that's the beautiful thing about presidential terms - they aren't forever.(laugh)
Post by: Scavenger on 27 Jul 2017, 05:25
Post by: Blondbraid on 27 Jul 2017, 12:00
And I also think that it's worth mentioning that women joining the army under a male identity isn't a new, or even particularly rare, phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_wartime_cross-dressers).
Post by: Atelier on 28 Jul 2017, 11:18
creation of the white identity, which is a political construct
What does this even mean?
Post by: Ali on 28 Jul 2017, 11:41
creation of the white identity, which is a political construct
What does this even mean?
If that's a sincere question, I think what Scavenger may be getting at is that racial identities are social and political constructs. Genetically, there's not much that separates different races, but culturally the differences are very significant - especially in the context of history. Right now in the US and Europe, there is a lot of anxiety around white identity. Some white people believe their culture and identity is under threat. What makes this political is that this kind of fear has been consistently manipulated by powerful people for political ends.
Popular white guy Bob Dylan put it like this (fifty years ago):
Quote
The poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool. He's taught in his school, from the start by the rules, that the laws are with him, to protect his white skin, to keep up his hate, so he never thinks straight, 'bout the shape that he's in. Aw, but he ain't to blame. He's only a pawn in their game.
The South politician preaches to the poor white man, "You got more than the blacks, don't complain! You're better than them, you been born with white skin," they explain. And the negro's name is used, it is plain, for the politician's gain, as he rises to fame, while the poor white remains on the caboose of the train, but it ain't him to blame. He's only a pawn in their game.
Post by: Atelier on 28 Jul 2017, 12:00
racial identities are social and political constructs. Genetically, there's not much that separates different races, but culturally the differences are very significant - especially in the context of history.
Oh right of course, well there's no denying that. But what throws me is the use of the word 'creation' as if racial identities do not grow in a society organically as a matter of course. I would argue that politics may (or may not) employ preexisting racial identities but it does not create them. Warp them or change them certainly; but people were white and black and brown, and presumably identified and discriminated as such, many thousands of years before the invention of systems of politics.
Post by: Snarky on 28 Jul 2017, 12:03
Post by: Atelier on 28 Jul 2017, 12:05
Post by: Ali on 28 Jul 2017, 12:52
However, we only have to look a few hundred years back to find writers contrasting the "English Race" with the "French Race". These are racial identities not many contemporary writers would subscribe to. Our concept of race has evolved, and modern racial identities have been created. In some ways, organically, and in some ways deliberately. The Nazis constructed a racial identity inspired by German Romanticism, and in opposition to an anti-Semitic, racialised view of Judaism. The Nation of Islam teaches that white people are a race of degenerate "devils" created by an evil scientist with the aim of subjugating black people and Islam.
These identities didn't just develop organically, they were created.
Post by: Snarky on 28 Jul 2017, 14:19
I don't see the relevance of that, please expand.
That politics, and more speculatively, political systems based on in-group and out-group discrimination, probably pre-date significant variation in phenotype across human populations.
Post by: Atelier on 28 Jul 2017, 14:44
These identities didn't just develop organically, they were created.
Sure, I absolutely get what you're saying. My point is simply that the statement 'white identity is a political construct' is obviously not the full story, race and identity goes a lot deeper socially and historically than that. It is my view that to place the problems we have on politics alone ignores the tendency for humans to self-identify, which can and certainly does happen without the influence of politics.
That politics, and more speculatively, political systems based on in-group and out-group discrimination, probably pre-date significant variation in phenotype across human populations.
You're saying: contemporary chimpanzee populations exhibit in-group and out-group behaviour; ergo human beings discriminated against one another before some lost the melanin in their skin. I don't buy that logic at all - of course I'm not arguing it is not true, but I'd be cautious with making comparisons with another species.
Edit
Also I would add that we're talking only about race here anyway, which evidence suggests chimpanzees do not possess in a physical way anyway*; and we're not talking about any of the quadrillions of other ways in which humans can divide themselves, as chimpanzees also do, even before our populations deviated morphologically.
*http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030066: 'there are no or only slight morphological or behavioral differences among the common chimpanzees'
Post by: Ali on 28 Jul 2017, 14:59
Post by: Atelier on 28 Jul 2017, 15:04
Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes. I would say that politics is not something that can be separated from history and society. I'm struggling to think of a sphere of human interaction outside what you call the "influence of politics". When I say race is political, I don't mean that the Republicans or the Whigs invented it. I mean that race is related to human organisational and governmental structures.
Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that :-D
Post by: Blondbraid on 28 Jul 2017, 23:33
Before that, the most important differences between people was religion, class and culture, and the social divide between classes could sometimes be almost as big as the one between races.
To give an example, when my grandfather was young and there was a ball in his home town, the hall where it was held was divided in two halves with a rope. One side was reserved for the finer folks and the other provided to those who weren't. Now, the thing is, everyone in the room was white. Instead of race, people were divided by their social class, and that was the most important difference there and then. I think that much of the current discussion of race could also be applied to class, and many right-wing thinkers have used the idea of a collective white identity to downplay the divide between upper class and the working class.
Post by: Scavenger on 29 Jul 2017, 00:03
Oh right of course, well there's no denying that. But what throws me is the use of the word 'creation' as if racial identities do not grow in a society organically as a matter of course. I would argue that politics may (or may not) employ preexisting racial identities but it does not create them. Warp them or change them certainly; but people were white and black and brown, and presumably identified and discriminated as such, many thousands of years before the invention of systems of politics.
Because "whiteness" WAS created, I got a link to a short article (https://medium.com/message/how-white-people-got-made-6eeb076ade42) about it.
The term "white" as anything but a vague descriptor was invented in the 17th century in the context of the atlantic slave trade. Before then, there was no whiteness. It originated, I believe, in Virginia. In groups and out groups existed before then, but never along modern "racial" lines, but more cultural and linguistic ones.
And really, whiteness could not be more artificially constructed if you tried. It did not "grow organically".
Post by: Stupot on 29 Jul 2017, 00:29
To give an example, when my grandfather was young and there was a ball in his home town, the hall where it was held was divided in two halves with a rope. One side was reserved for the finer folks and the other provided to those who weren't.That just sounds like a VIP partition. You still get those in any nightclub and many other entertainment activities.
Quote
Now, the thing is, everyone in the room was white.It would be more scientific if there had been some blacks in the room too. Then we could have seen how the room was really partitioned. Even if there was no black/white separation I'm willing to bet they would have formed thwir own partition, rather than mingled. I'm also willing to bet the black/white distribution wouldn't have been the same on both sides of the social class partition.
Post by: Atelier on 29 Jul 2017, 00:45
In groups and out groups existed before then, but never along modern "racial" lines, but more cultural and linguistic ones.
That's a very bold claim, one which I don't think is historically substantiated at all. Just take a look at this, a list of medieval Arabic writers who speak in no uncertain terms about black people: http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2002&x=arabviews
If we are to mean racism in terms of weaponised politics (Jim Crow laws etc), then of course one can scarcely disagree, considering that it is only in modern history that different races have begun to live side by side in some societies.
Edit
It would be more scientific if there had been some blacks in the room too.
Precisely, the point is that there probably wasn't anybody who wasn't white in your grandfather's town anyway (this was certainly the case in my own grandfather's village when he was growing up at least), so how could they have discriminated against race? In this case saying that political racism is a new phenomenon is actually quite pithy. But it doesn't follow that racial identity was an unheard of, alien concept before then.
Post by: Scavenger on 29 Jul 2017, 01:24
That's a very bold claim, one which I don't think is historically substantiated at all. Just take a look at this, a list of medieval Arabic writers who speak in no uncertain terms about black people: http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2002&x=arabviews
I am specifically talking about "whiteness" and the racial lines drawn like that. Yes, in the past people did notice other people's skin colour, and I'm not denying that racism existed at all. My main point is that whiteness is not an ancient constant, not something formed naturally, as you posited. You go back before the 17th century and whiteness doesn't make sense. Heck, whiteness has changed meanings between then and now.
Something white nationalists love to do is to eternalise the concept of whiteness, to say that it had always existed, to co opt symbology and cultures within itself to create a fictive timeline of white greatness. When, that just isn't the case, and its pretty harmful to pretend otherwise - because white nationalists will use it to say that the white race has a long and storied history and is struggling against the other races who are all bad.... which is bullshit.
Post by: Atelier on 29 Jul 2017, 01:35
Post by: Snarky on 29 Jul 2017, 08:40
But this is taking us further from the thread topic: the ongoing catastrophe in the US government. And that's something I think transcends ordinary politics.
Whether you support gay rights or not, even if you believe in tough-on-crime policies and the war on drugs, want to repeal Obamacare and throw out illegal immigrants, it must be realized that the Trump administration (from the top down) is dangerously unhinged, incompetent and corrupt, to the point where it undermines national security, the rule of law and democracy itself. To take just one example: The Department of Energy (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis).
Post by: Blondbraid on 29 Jul 2017, 11:51
That just sounds like a VIP partition. You still get those in any nightclub and many other entertainment activities.Are VIP partition dependent on someone's profession, education or name? The better half of the ball was reserved for officers, professors, doctors and their families while the other half was for workers, farmers and the like, so it was still very much divided by class.
Quote
It would be more scientific if there had been some blacks in the room too. Then we could have seen how the room was really partitioned. Even if there was no black/white separation I'm willing to bet they would have formed thwir own partition, rather than mingled. I'm also willing to bet the black/white distribution wouldn't have been the same on both sides of the social class partition.It's hard to tell, since there was very little immigration in Sweden at the time, but the point I wanted to make is that people can create divisions in the population even when there are no different visible races. Also worth mentioning is that lots of groups now considered white weren't treated as such a hundred years ago, like the Irish or Italians, and when when Finland was part of Sweden, finns were discriminated against by the swedes.
But to get back to Trump, I once heard an argument that the reason he's popular among the white working class is that he's a poor man's idea of what a rich person would be,
like having everything made of gold with his name stamped on it, eating steak with ketchup and boasting about all the things he could do.
Post by: Stupot on 17 Aug 2017, 05:59
Does anyone still think America haven't shot themselves in the foot?
Post by: SilverSpook on 17 Aug 2017, 06:21
Post by: Gurok on 17 Aug 2017, 06:30
Post by: SilverSpook on 17 Aug 2017, 06:33
Post by: Gurok on 17 Aug 2017, 06:55
There was one candidate we might've been slightly less worse-off under, but he got taken behind the woodshed.
Sanders? Maybe. He wanted to focus on infrastructure and American production too.
He might have pulled out of Syria. He was certainly going to ensure a better deal for Palestine.
I don't think anyone had a good solution to the China and national debt problems.
As an outsider, I think what the Democratic (socialist?) party did to him was pretty awful.
I wasn't replying to you directly, by the way. My post was a reply to Stupot's question.
Post by: dactylopus on 17 Aug 2017, 07:03
No, I don't think it's fair to categorise America as being worse off under Trump.I don't think that's a fact-based statement.
Post by: Gurok on 17 Aug 2017, 07:15
No, I don't think it's fair to categorise America as being worse off under Trump.I don't think that's a fact-based statement.
Actually, now that I've re-read the question, I've changed my reply.
Post by: SilverSpook on 17 Aug 2017, 07:33
There was one candidate we might've been slightly less worse-off under, but he got taken behind the woodshed.
Sanders? Maybe. He wanted to focus on infrastructure and American production too.
He might have pulled out of Syria. He was certainly going to ensure a better deal for Palestine.
I don't think anyone had a good solution to the China and national debt problems.
As an outsider, I think what the Democratic (socialist?) party did to him was pretty awful.
I wasn't replying to you directly, by the way. My post was a reply to Stupot's question.
To be fair, I don't think any candidate could've done much, because we're living under Neofeudalism (tm), not democracy.
Elections and governments and all that horse shit are dog-and-pony-shows to sell Ensure and bloated fruitless subprime college tuitions to Boomers and keep millennials dumping mute rage and data and eyeball time into tech-leviathans server-vaults while people who actually run the world go about running it.
Would've been nice to at least have someone who wasn't an incompetent fascist *oompa-loompa or a competent fascist vampire squid at least as the puppethead of the United States, though. Bernie was a nice guy. Probably would've gotten steamrolled or assassinated or whatever, but would've been nice to say, "Hey, we had an actual nice guy pretending to be in charge for two days!"
(*oompa-loompa won)
Post by: Snarky on 17 Aug 2017, 09:50
Post by: Ali on 17 Aug 2017, 09:55
Post by: Radiant on 17 Aug 2017, 11:00
Ah yes, good old "both-sides-are-equally-bad"-ism. Lowering my respect for AGSers since 2004.
It strikes me that the smartest thing the republicans have done over the past decade is tell people that all politicians are bad, because this keeps a lot of people from voting against them. There is a clear correlation that the less people vote, the more seats go to the reps.
Post by: SilverSpook on 17 Aug 2017, 11:48
In all serious though, as someone living in the U.S. and a person of color, fuck Nazis and fuck Trump!
(Native Hawaiian -- they all think I'm Mexican on the mainland and I get "random searched" every time at the border.)
Post by: Danvzare on 17 Aug 2017, 12:02
*stirs the pot*Well I remember wanting to wait and see if Trump was going to be a terrible president. Because at the time all we had to go on was his election campaign, and I felt as though people were being too quick to judge.
Does anyone still think America haven't shot themselves in the foot?
Since then though, I've realised all of those people were absolutely right in their presumptions.
Post by: Mandle on 17 Aug 2017, 12:57
Well I remember wanting to wait and see if Trump was going to be a terrible president. Because at the time all we had to go on was his election campaign, and I felt as though people were being too quick to judge.
Since then though, I've realised all of those people were absolutely right in their presumptions.
I would go as far as to say that America is currently without a president.
Apart from the whims of an idiot, only the ruthless infighting of the government system remains at the moment to run the country, and that is not going to end well...
Post by: dactylopus on 17 Aug 2017, 16:49
Remove the Yes / No, and it's still not a fact-based statement.No, I don't think it's fair to categorise America as being worse off under Trump.I don't think that's a fact-based statement.
Actually, now that I've re-read the question, I've changed my reply.
There is a possibility, however, that America will be better off after his presidency, because people will be mobilized to prevent something like this from happening again. Until we again become complacent...
Post by: Gurok on 17 Aug 2017, 23:58
Remove the Yes / No, and it's still not a fact-based statement.
There is a possibility, however, that America will be better off after his presidency, because people will be mobilized to prevent something like this from happening again. Until we again become complacent...
I'm not sure what you're getting at or what you thought Stupot's question was.
Post by: Ali on 18 Aug 2017, 01:00
Post by: Ryan Timothy B on 18 Aug 2017, 06:33
There is a possibility, however, that America will be better off after his presidency, because people will be mobilized to prevent something like this from happening again. Until we again become complacent...It's funny because I often wonder if the *best* thing for America is Trump. Not Trump himself though (obviously). Where he has indirectly shown us what's wrong with that country and what needs to be fixed. Before Trump, did the world know how rough of shape that country was in? The people seem immensely divided.
When I watch the buffoon's speeches, a small part of me wonders if he's playing the role of the fool to help unite everyone against what's broken; shine some light on the creeps who have been hiding in the shadows. But who am I kidding. lol
Post by: dactylopus on 18 Aug 2017, 06:56
He's saying that your assertion that America is no worse off isn't supported by the evidence. This thread is full of examples of things that are worse as a consequence of Trump taking office. I'd be interested to know how those bad things are balanced out by the good things you think the President has achieved.Yes, this. Exactly this.
It's funny because I often wonder if the *best* thing for America is Trump. Not Trump himself though (obviously). Where he has indirectly shown us what's wrong with that country and what needs to be fixed. Before Trump, did the world know how rough of shape that country was in? The people seem immensely divided.I know, I'm almost torn on it. Like yeah, it's a horrible term. But maybe it brings this evil to light, and maybe it serves a higher purpose? Maybe I'm just trying to find the silver lining in this devastating hurricane of a president.
When I watch the buffoon's speeches, a small part of me wonders if he's playing the role of the fool to help unite everyone against what's broken; shine some light on the creeps who have been hiding in the shadows. But who am I kidding. lol
Post by: selmiak on 18 Aug 2017, 08:00
Post by: Stupot on 18 Aug 2017, 08:06
It's ridicluous. Who said there even has to be a side? Can't people make their own opinions without feeling like they have to be part of a gang? Left and right is bullshit. I hate even using those terms. I make my opinions on a case by case basis. Most of them happen to align with more left-wing opinions but I'm not joining hands with everybody else on the left... some of them are bullies and arseholes too. Still others are needy hug seekers. (Also the recent Corbyn-mania in the UK has been utterly embarrassing - I cautiously voted for the guy, but why are people so willing to throw their entire logical process into one temporary political movement? It makes me cringe.)
People say 'but but humans need to be part of a group'. Not me. I love being alone with my own free-will and decision-making capabilities (well I did... then I got married, but yeah...)
Post by: Radiant on 18 Aug 2017, 16:49
Post by: dactylopus on 18 Aug 2017, 17:49
I'm not sure. He seems (perhaps not deliberately) to be encouraging division. What does he have to do or say to make even his own supporters say "oh, yeah, that was a shitty thing to say." The opposite is happenning. Everyone, on the left and right, is stubbornly sticking to their guns and hurling abuse at anyone on the other 'side'.I agree. There should be more than 2 sides. I don't necessarily agree with everything that any one party says, but I strongly disagree with just about everything that a couple of them say. I think a lot of people are like that. You end up aligning with and voting for either the party that you have the most in common with, or the party that will prevent the opposite from coming to power. It'd be great if it worked differently, especially in the US, but that's kind of the reality of the situation.
It's ridicluous. Who said there even has to be a side? Can't people make their own opinions without feeling like they have to be part of a gang? Left and right is bullshit. I hate even using those terms. I make my opinions on a case by case basis. Most of them happen to align with more left-wing opinions but I'm not joining hands with everybody else on the left... some of them are bullies and arseholes too. Still others are needy hug seekers. (Also the recent Corbyn-mania in the UK has been utterly embarrassing - I cautiously voted for the guy, but why are people so willing to throw their entire logical process into one temporary political movement? It makes me cringe.)
People say 'but but humans need to be part of a group'. Not me. I love being alone with my own free-will and decision-making capabilities (well I did... then I got married, but yeah...)
When this is not the case, it tends to be down to one or two strong issues that you support and you will base your entire vote around those regardless of the party's position on any other issue. I feel that this is part of the reason that Trump is in the White House (when he in fact belongs in the "Big House"). The other part is the deliberate and obvious misinformation regarding certain positions that people walked blindly into.
Post by: Gurok on 18 Aug 2017, 18:45
He's saying that your assertion that America is no worse off isn't supported by the evidence. This thread is full of examples of things that are worse as a consequence of Trump taking office. I'd be interested to know how those bad things are balanced out by the good things you think the President has achieved.Yes, this. Exactly this.
I understand what you're saying, just not why you feel the need to say it.
I mean, OK, great, we've established that you disagree. The question wasn't "please list facts about Trump's presidency".
Ali, there are certainly examples of things people think are worse as a result of Trump taking office in this thread. It's a question of how much importance you place on these things versus other metrics.
I'm a non-American -- an outsider. What matters most to me is the US economy and international relations.
Most recently, Trump dealt with the North Korea situation very well. His threats to North Korea have resulted in a deescalation of the situation. He's also successfully pressured China to make good on their commitment to further sanction North Korea.
As for the economy, unemployment numbers are down, US trade is looking more sustainable, and as Trump keeps mentioning, the Dow Jones is up significantly.
Also, a bit of a stretch to say it was an assertion. I said "I don't think..." not "it is this way". I know that people have different perspectives on this, and I think that's what Stupot was trying to gauge.
Post by: Radiant on 18 Aug 2017, 22:08
His threats to North Korea have resulted in a deescalation of the situation.Nope (https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/war-of-the-words-north-korea-trump-and-strategic-stability/).
Quote
US trade is looking more sustainableNope (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-win-nafta-talks-241617).
Quote
and as Trump keeps mentioning, the Dow Jones is up significantly.Aaand nope (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/08/02/trump-is-fooling-himself-with-the-dow-000485).
Maybe you should try that again :grin:
Post by: Gurok on 19 Aug 2017, 05:26
His threats to North Korea have resulted in a deescalation of the situation.Nope (https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/war-of-the-words-north-korea-trump-and-strategic-stability/).
I'm struggling to compete with that opinion piece.
Note the date of the article you posted about North Korea. I said "resulted in". Here is something more recent:
http://in.reuters.com/article/northkorea-missiles-nuclear-idINKCN1AX0KJ
"Pyongyang has since said Kim has delayed his decision on Guam."
Reason? Trump got China to enforce the latest round of sanctions on North Korea.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/14/china-enforce-un-sanctions-against-north-korea-wil/
QuoteUS trade is looking more sustainableNope (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-win-nafta-talks-241617).
The trade deficit is down under Trump:
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
I think an outdated free trade agreement is better than none, but we will see what comes of Trump's plan. You might want to re-read that article. It appears to be saying that renegotiating NAFTA will be hard and not that trade is worse.
Quoteand as Trump keeps mentioning, the Dow Jones is up significantly.Aaand nope (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/08/02/trump-is-fooling-himself-with-the-dow-000485).
The slant is real. I don't know if Politico's "Agenda" was the best of sources for verifying that fact. All you really needed was a graph:
http://www.tr4der.com/info/%5EDJI/6-months/
Also, the Agenda article's (heavily slanted) points are that a rising Dow Jones isn't a strong economy per se, a rising index isn't strongly correlated with economic growth nor is it an absolutely certain predictor.
If all that is true, then what do we use the Dow Jones and other stock price indices for?
When the trend is up, it generally indicates that a recession is unlikely. It can also indicate other things, like a falling dollar, for instance. When the trend continues up and reaches record highs, that has a positive effect on investor confidence and generally bodes well for the next few months.
Post by: Radiant on 19 Aug 2017, 11:06
Regarding Korea, the fact that North Korea makes a wild threat (e.g. to attack Guam) and then doesn't follow through is not a deescalation; this is how NK has consistently behaved for decades. Indeed, the situation around NK is more tense than it has been in a long time, and shows no signs of calming down. There is clearly no deescalation here. You have an interesting point about China though; China so far seems happy to do favors for the president. Of course, he has also done a lot of good for China, which leads us to...
...trade. Now obviously, stepping out of long-standing trade agreements (and starting trade wars with traditional partners like Canada) is the exact opposite of "sustainable trade". Effectively, this paralyzes US trade while they take time to re-negotiate, and in the meantime the obvious effects are (1) unemployment in the US will go up sharply, and (2) other countries will have more trade opportunities. Notably, this includes China. It is very good for the rest of the world that the US becomes a less competitive trading partner; it's just not good for the US.
And the whole Dow Jones thing is just a red herring. Yes, the index is up, but as the article I've linked explains (1) it is not a measure of how well the economy is doing, but of how much rich people benefit from stock options; and (2) politics has a very limited influence over these indices, particularly in times where congress is gridlocked. After all, fixing the economy is slightly harder than tweeting about it...
Post by: Ali on 19 Aug 2017, 11:11
Post by: Mandle on 19 Aug 2017, 13:29
It's also fairly sunny today, so all due credit to Trump for that.
(laugh)(laugh)(laugh)
Post by: Ali on 19 Aug 2017, 13:44
Thanks, Killary!
Post by: Scavenger on 19 Aug 2017, 13:58
And the fact that he still refuses to point blank say that white supremacists are bad, period, makes em feel even safer.
Post by: Blondbraid on 19 Aug 2017, 15:22
but if Trump wins, while it would be bad for USA it could be an improvement for the rest of the world as he has been consistently had a policy of
isolating USA, barring people from entry, attempting to build a wall, promoting nationalism etcetera. Their argument was that, judging from America's
track record in nearly every global conflict post WWII, USA limiting their global influence be a good thing.
But I agree with Scavenger in that Trump should have openly taken a clear stand against the white supremacists rather than just making some weak statement that both sides are equally bad.
Post by: Mandle on 19 Aug 2017, 16:33
And the fact that he still refuses to point blank say that white supremacists are bad, period, makes em feel even safer.
Actually, I believe he said exactly that, while using a teleprompter (which he rarely does, so you know it was not his words coming outa his mouth), a few days ago.
I got the feeling those good-ole-boys down south are not all that pleased right about now concerning the president they feel their votes put into power.
And they got a shit-load of guns and hate.
If Trump gets assassinated sometime soon the feds know where to start their investigation at least...
Post by: Scavenger on 19 Aug 2017, 18:03
And the fact that he still refuses to point blank say that white supremacists are bad, period, makes em feel even safer.
Actually, I believe he said exactly that, while using a teleprompter (which he rarely does, so you know it was not his words coming outa his mouth), a few days ago.
He immediately backtracked on it. (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/543743845/another-reversal-trump-now-says-counterprotesters-also-to-blame-for-charlottesvi)
He may have said it, but he couldn't help but continue to talk about "violent leftists" in order to defend the nazi rally.
Post by: Ali on 19 Aug 2017, 20:00
The comparison of Confederate monuments with Washington or Lincoln (Edit: Fake News) would be intellectually dishonest, except that nothing Trump does is intellectual. Lincoln and Washington are admired (rightly or wrongly) in spite of their racism. Confederate heroes are revered specifically because of their racism.
In other news I'm starting a petition to reinstate Jimmy Savile's statue. After all, we don't want to erase history, do we?
Post by: Snarky on 19 Aug 2017, 21:05
And Confederate "heroes" may or may not have been personally racist (or more racist than the average person of the day), but they fought for a racist cause. A statue honoring Robert E. Lee is problematic just as a statue honoring Erwing Rommel would be: both had admirable qualities, both are highly respected as military geniuses, but both fought on the side of an evil regime and seem to have been in sympathy with many of the basic aims of that regime.
Post by: Mandle on 20 Aug 2017, 01:49
He immediately backtracked on it. (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/543743845/another-reversal-trump-now-says-counterprotesters-also-to-blame-for-charlottesvi)
Oh, I wasn't aware of that.
He probably sensed effigies of himself being made all over the south for burning at the next rallies...
Post by: Gurok on 20 Aug 2017, 09:57
And the whole Dow Jones thing is just a red herring.
I don't want to argue about these things. I don't think you're refuting what I'm saying, I think we just disagree about what's important.
Post by: Blondbraid on 21 Aug 2017, 00:03
ITYM Washington and Jefferson rather than Lincoln, Ali. At least those were the presidents Trump originally compared Lee to.So what about this statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest? (laugh)
And Confederate "heroes" may or may not have been personally racist (or more racist than the average person of the day), but they fought for a racist cause. A statue honoring Robert E. Lee is problematic just as a statue honoring Erwing Rommel would be: both had admirable qualities, both are highly respected as military geniuses, but both fought on the side of an evil regime and seem to have been in sympathy with many of the basic aims of that regime.
(http://images.gawker.com/1310553686853971558/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800.jpg)
Post by: Scavenger on 21 Aug 2017, 02:50
Post by: Mandle on 21 Aug 2017, 06:05
Also: I believe, in the book at least, that's the dude Forrest Gump's mama named him after, so the statue must stay!
Post by: Stupot on 21 Aug 2017, 07:20
Daaamn. I feel like I should've known that.
Post by: Mandle on 21 Aug 2017, 10:28
Forrest Gump was based on a book?
Daaamn. I feel like I should've known that.
Yeah, although the movie is probably better as it cuts out some the more unbelievable parts of the book like
There is even a book: Forrest Gump 2, by the same author (Winston Groom I believe) which is quite good and Gump even
The sequel was written after the movie became a hit (as you could tell if you have read the hidden section above) and I think it was quite a good sequal/ending to the adventures of the dude, but probably a bit too depressing to make into a movie for the most part...
Fun Fact Bonus:
Post by: Radiant on 21 Aug 2017, 10:45
I don't want to argue about these things. I don't think you're refuting what I'm saying, I think we just disagree about what's important.We can certainly have different opinions about what's important.
But we do have the same facts. And two facts about the Dow Jones are that (1) it's a measure of the stock market, not the overall economy; and (2) it is not directly influenced by the government.
So the question is, are you (A) starting from the assumption that you like this politician, and searching specifically for data that supports that, or (B) looking at all of the data and use that to decide whether or not that politician is doing a good job.
Post by: Problem on 21 Aug 2017, 12:08
It's also no good to limit your view to the economy and international relations like Gurok does - that may be convenient if you want to support Trump, but it leaves out the worst parts. The country appears to be more divided than in a long time, partly because of an election campaign full of hate and lies. The current US government seems to be unable to bring any real reforms on the way, despite having a large majority in the Congress - this results in a political stagnation that you wouldn't expect with such clear majorities, and that says a lot about Trump's negotiating abilities. (One could argue that it's better if they get nothing done though... but that's not the point) Trump also hasn't delivered on his promise to fight corruption - instead he repealed anti-corruption rules.
See, you don't even have to bring up racism or minorities or his ridiculous lies to see that Trump's presidency is failing. Are the USA better off with Trump? I doubt it. The conflicts, both domestic and international, have become much more intense, and he appears to be too incompetent to improve the situation in any way.
Post by: Danvzare on 21 Aug 2017, 12:15
This one post, is more interesting than this entire thread. (nod)Forrest Gump was based on a book?
Daaamn. I feel like I should've known that.
Yeah, although the movie is probably better as it cuts out some the more unbelievable parts of the book like
There is even a book: Forrest Gump 2, by the same author (Winston Groom I believe) which is quite good and Gump even
The sequel was written after the movie became a hit (as you could tell if you have read the hidden section above) and I think it was quite a good sequal/ending to the adventures of the dude, but probably a bit too depressing to make into a movie for the most part...
Fun Fact Bonus:
Post by: Gurok on 21 Aug 2017, 13:58
I don't want to argue about these things. I don't think you're refuting what I'm saying, I think we just disagree about what's important.We can certainly have different opinions about what's important.
But we do have the same facts. And two facts about the Dow Jones are that (1) it's a measure of the stock market, not the overall economy; and (2) it is not directly influenced by the government.
I think you've missed some details here. Your first point might be true, but it isn't relevant. Sure, it is not the overall economy, but it has an impact. I made a summary of the key points of the article where I mentioned something similar. Your second point is just not correct, sorry, unless you're trying to argue that it isn't direct enough. No, it's not a planned market economy.
So the question is, are you (A) starting from the assumption that you like this politician, and searching specifically for data that supports that, or (B) looking at all of the data and use that to decide whether or not that politician is doing a good job.
OK, it sounds like you're projecting now. I didn't go looking for news articles to support an argument. I listed a few of the notable things I'd heard or read in the media recently, or that Trump himself tweeted about. I think it's actually YOU who started with an assumption that Trump is terrible and sought out any opinion piece you could find that downplayed the role of what I listed.
Post by: Scavenger on 21 Aug 2017, 14:06
OK, it sounds like you're projecting now. I didn't go looking for news articles to support an argument. I listed a few of the notable things I'd heard or read in the media recently, or that Trump himself tweeted about. I think it's actually YOU who started with an assumption that Trump is terrible and sought out any opinion piece you could find that downplayed the role of what I listed.
Um, it's not hard to find evidence that Trump is terrible, he only goes and does something awful every couple of days, and has done since... well... forever. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly justify not loathing him. It's not an assumption if his terrible nature is on display constantly. You'd have to completely ignore everything the man does to believe otherwise.
Post by: Radiant on 21 Aug 2017, 14:55
Your second point is just not correct, sorryIn that case, it should be easy for you to answer: what, specifically, has the current government done that has increased the Dow?
Quote
I listed a few of the notable things I'd heard or read in the media recentlySo please read up on the background of these notable things. I mean, earlier you called it a specific accomplishment to make North Korea back down from its threats, but if you look at their history you'l note that NK has always backed down from its threats in the last decade.
Post by: Mandle on 21 Aug 2017, 15:31
I mean, earlier you called it a specific accomplishment to make North Korea back down from its threats, but if you look at their history you'l note that NK has always backed down from its threats in the last decade.
Well, except for this rather notable and baffling incident:
November 23, 2010: North Korea fired artillery at South Korea's Greater Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea and South Korea returned fire. Two South Korean marines and two South Korean civilians were killed, six were seriously wounded, and ten were treated for minor injuries. About seventy South Korean houses were destroyed. North Korean casualties were unknown, but Lee Hong-gi, the Director of Operations of the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), claimed that as a result of the South Korean retaliation "there may be a considerable number of North Korean casualties".
I remember seeing this live on the news here in Japan and thinking "Oh shit, here we go... The Korean War is back on!"
And then... nothing... except for a bunch of talking... Well, nothing that us, the public, knew about anyways. I'm assuming there were backdoor communications between both sides that prevented war at this point...
But...
Personally, if I lived in a country that had just gotten shelled to that extent and countrymen's lives were lost and my government did (apparently) nothing, I think I would feel pretty pissed off...
Yeah, not really on point with this whole discussion except maybe as semi-proof that NK saber-rattling sometimes is not just empty threats.
Post by: Gurok on 22 Aug 2017, 07:04
Your second point is just not correct, sorryIn that case, it should be easy for you to answer: what, specifically, has the current government done that has increased the Dow?
I don't think I need to. If the Dow were plummeting, it might indicate that another recession is on the way.
QuoteI listed a few of the notable things I'd heard or read in the media recentlySo please read up on the background of these notable things. I mean, earlier you called it a specific accomplishment to make North Korea back down from its threats, but if you look at their history you'l note that NK has always backed down from its threats in the last decade.
I'm very well aware of the background of these accomplishments. China was funding North Korea for a long time because China feared a unified Korea. Sentiment changed a couple of years ago, and these further sanctions are public acknowledgement.
Post by: Andail on 22 Aug 2017, 07:37
Oh, and what's more, he didn't just cut corporate taxes, which is the short-term way of making the stock market happy.
Post by: Scavenger on 26 Aug 2017, 01:50
America sure is better under his rule, isn't it.
Post by: Khris on 26 Aug 2017, 11:19
I Have No More Patience for Trump Supporters (esquire) (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57164/trump-arizona-speech/)
Our Bigot in Chief Has Shown His True Colors (The Nation) (https://www.thenation.com/article/our-bigot-in-chief-has-shown-his-true-colors/)
The President of Blank Sucking Nullity (David Roth) (https://thebaffler.com/latest/the-president-of-blank-sucking-nullity-roth)
Post by: Mandle on 27 Aug 2017, 04:15
America sure is better under his rule, isn't it.
I think some images from classic Simpsons really represent how I feel about Trump at the helm of America:
Trump Replaces Obama:
(https://static.simpsonswiki.com/images/thumb/3/35/Queenie_Chicken.png/250px-Queenie_Chicken.png)
A Better Replacement For Trump:
(https://i.imgflip.com/z83nd.jpg)
Post by: Mandle on 22 Sep 2017, 13:15
I'm betting Kim is pretty damn surprised at how many supporters are springing up on social media lauding his first-ever public speech seen by the world.
Post by: Stupot on 23 Sep 2017, 02:39
DOTARD!!! (laugh)It's pretty hard not to agree with basically everything he said in that speech. Trump has to go. I mean, Kim has to go, too, but let's just get things back to pre-Trump levels first.
I'm betting Kim is pretty damn surprised at how many supporters are springing up on social media lauding his first-ever public speech seen by the world.
Post by: milkanannan on 23 Sep 2017, 05:22
Regarding North Korea, I really don't know what the correct approach is. Pushing them towards nuclear war is likely to get a lot of random people killed. However, turning on a bit of heat at least pushes NK's remaining trading partners (i.e. China) to apply destabilising economic pressure. Obama's approach of endless diplomacy at least preserved the status quo. I guess the game plan then is to wait 60 years for Kim to die and hope his son is better.
Post by: Mandle on 23 Sep 2017, 08:03
I guess the game plan then is to wait 60 years for Kim to die and hope his son is better.
60 years?! Have you seen the guy?! I'd give him another 20 odd, and that's being optimistic.
Seriously though: In my opinion, the thing about the Kim dynasty is that they are as much victims of brainwashing as the regular citizens are.
The citizens of North Korea are raised to believe that "Supreme Leader" is a god, and all that stands between them and destruction at the hands of the evil outside world.
And: "Supreme Leader" is raised to believe exactly the same. All Kim (and his father before him) has been told and observed since he was a toddler is that he, and only he, is capable of protecting his country and people from the chaos and evil that exists elsewhere in the world.
I don't see him as the Bond villain he is often portrayed as. I don't think he wants to get nuclear weapons so he can immediately start using them to crush his enemies underfoot. I think he sees this goal as the first necessary step to maintaining security for his country. After which time the country can start recovering in other vital internal ways. This is in fact what North Korea has been saying all along. And I don't think they are lying.
And I'm sure he is well-studied in the case of Mr. Hussein, where America and the U.N. put similar pressure on him to stop producing nerve gas weapons, and then, after he had complied, America went ahead and invaded Iraq anyway, toppled his regime, and he ended up at the end of a rope.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the world isn't a better place without Mr. Hussein, but that really wasn't a very wise way to set up a trusting relationship with future dictators with their hearts set on WMD programs.
Let's face it: NK already has nuclear weapons, just not yet the tech to mount them on long-range missiles, but if they really wanted to start using them ASAP they would have just loaded them on boats or subs (heavily shielded to avoid detection from satelites and other sensors), parked them close enough to Seoul, Tokyo, Los Angeles, New York, Washington etc. and set them off, while most of the NK army pours across the border into SK. An America crippled by even offshore nuclear strikes on one or multiple major cities would be in no shape to fight a war in SK where they would be killing more SK citizens than NK soldiers. And the nuclear alternative?! Yeah, China is really going to appreciate nukes going off just over the border and millions of their own citizens dying as a result. They would fire nukes at America and then it's game over for everyone.
Anyways, my point was that NK has nuclear weapons and, very soon they are going to be able to mount them on ICBMs. They are not going to give up on this goal. The only alternative is to start an unthinkably horrible war on the Korean Peninsula which would probably result in all-out nuclear war between China and America.
My personal solution would be to just let the baby have his bottle. He has it anyway. He needs it to feel secure. He knows the moment he uses it that security is gone.
Just let him have his nukes I say. It's a horrible solution to a horrible problem, but it's way better than the alternatives. And if Pakistan and India have managed not to blow each other up all these years then there is hope.
(This rant was not sponsered by Kim Jong Un and/or his regime. I personally think he is a pretty despicable, albiet brainwashed, human being and the world would probably be a better place without him. But reality is what it is. And look what happened in Iraq after the horrible strongman dictator was removed. Yeah... that didn't work out too well.)
Post by: milkanannan on 23 Sep 2017, 08:44
I guess the game plan then is to wait 60 years for Kim to die and hope his son is better.
60 years?! Have you seen the guy?! I'd give him another 20 odd, and that's being optimistic.
20 years...and then 40 years of the regime pretending he's not dead yet while they wait for Kim Jong Junior to grow up. (laugh)
Post by: milkanannan on 23 Sep 2017, 08:55
Just let him have his nukes I say. It's a horrible solution to a horrible problem, but it's way better than the alternatives. And if Pakistan and India have managed not to blow each other up all these years then there is hope.
Yeah, I guess I'd have to agree. I mean what else can the world do? Trump's approach is really a unique one, even for him. It almost makes you wonder if there is some ulterior motive - maybe give China a bit of anxiety in an effort to pacify them over the US's refocusing to the Far East?
Post by: Mandle on 23 Sep 2017, 16:26
Trump's approach is really a unique one, even for him. It almost makes you wonder if there is some ulterior motive
Almost could make you wonder...but not quite...
Trump has no motives other than waking up and seeing his name on the TV news (because god-forbid he ever reads a printed word) and then tweeting whatever the frick he feels like at that exact moment.
I still honestly feel like I am in a really bad dream that I can't wake up from and have felt that way since November last year...
And it just keeps getting worse... :~(
Post by: milkanannan on 07 Oct 2017, 05:38
Post by: Ali on 07 Oct 2017, 10:03
You can't simply pluck a democratically elected leader away because you don't like them.
Unless you're the CIA...
Post by: Scavenger on 07 Oct 2017, 10:23
however, what equally scares me is if Trump gets forcibly removed from office because he's unpopular. You can't simply pluck a democratically elected leader away because you don't like them.
Actually, that is the function of democracy - democracy isn't "oh well, now we're stuck with an emperor for four years" after you vote. It's a constant, ongoing process. And if the leader isn't fit to lead, you replace them. Trump is unequivocally incompetent. Removing him would safeguard the safety of everyone AND uphold democracy. Especially since he's skirted with fascist policies multiple times.
Post by: Radiant on 07 Oct 2017, 10:44
You can't simply pluck a democratically elected leader away because you don't like them.There's a legal process for that, it's called "impeachment".
That said, in the unlikely case that this happens (since his own party controls the majority vote), he would get replaced by Pence. If you look at Pence's philosophies and vote pattern, then that would likely make the situation worse.
Post by: Cassiebsg on 07 Oct 2017, 10:47
he would get replaced by Pence. .
And all of a sudden it make sense why he choose Pence... 8-0
Post by: Ali on 07 Oct 2017, 12:18
Post by: milkanannan on 07 Oct 2017, 15:46
Post by: Ali on 07 Oct 2017, 15:54
Post by: Radiant on 07 Oct 2017, 15:58
But on what grounds would he be impeached?
The Mueller investigation, once it concludes.
Post by: Scavenger on 07 Oct 2017, 17:32
Post by: milkanannan on 07 Oct 2017, 17:43
Post by: Mandle on 12 Nov 2017, 02:14
"Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!"
Channelling Churchill?!
Post by: milkanannan on 12 Nov 2017, 12:55
Post by: Bavolis on 12 Nov 2017, 17:48
Post by: Mandle on 12 Nov 2017, 22:50
Post by: Snarky on 13 Nov 2017, 08:58
Post by: Blondbraid on 08 Jan 2018, 17:42
it's by far the best thing I've ever read about Trump: https://www.themarysue.com/trump-and-the-gorillas/ (laugh)
Post by: Matti on 09 Jan 2018, 11:21
Quote
As it turns out, though, the idea is so believable that a whole lot of people actually did buy that this was a real page from Wolff's book.
Post by: RickJ on 09 Jan 2018, 15:26
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2018, 15:36
It just shows how easily people are misinformed and will believe anything that supports their own preconceived notions.
It does also reflect on the absurdity of the man, that ludicrous satire is only a few degrees apart from reality.
Post by: Khris on 09 Jan 2018, 15:52
Post by: dactylopus on 09 Jan 2018, 16:49
It just shows how easily people are misinformed and will believe anything that supports their own preconceived notions.
... while I highly doubt its authenticity ...I do agree, it does sound real enough to be true...
Post by: Gurok on 09 Jan 2018, 16:54
It just shows how easily people are misinformed and will believe anything that supports their own preconceived notions.
Btw, it's uncanny how spot-on Snarky's predictions (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=54140.msg636547472#msg636547472) from 14 months ago are.Hope that was tongue-in-cheek, Khris
Post by: Monsieur OUXX on 09 Jan 2018, 17:17
Btw, it's uncanny how spot-on Snarky's predictions (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=54140.msg636547472#msg636547472) from 14 months ago are.Hope that was tongue-in-cheek, Khris
the funny part is that Trump is already the "short-on-expertise extremist/sycophant/charlatan" about whom Snarky is talking, if you compare him to literally any US politician before the 90's, even the ones from his own political family.
Post by: Khris on 09 Jan 2018, 18:10
Hope that was tongue-in-cheek, KhrisNot at all.
(I'm also very familiar with confirmation bias and other cognitive biases, in case you think I'm not.)
Post by: Snarky on 09 Jan 2018, 21:38
I'm guessing Gurok's main objection is my prediction that:
Anti-trade policies and attempts to "get tough" in trade negotiations with China and other countries lead to retributory policies that may escalate into a trade war. Together with the uncertainty caused by Trump's erratic behavior, this causes the economy to plunge into another recession.
In fact, the economy appears to be doing pretty well so far.
To that I would say: First, Trump hasn't really followed through (yet) on most of his campaign promises on trade policy, apart from killing off the TPP deal. That has hurt the US, but the real damage would happen if he pulled the US out of NAFTA or launched a trade war with China or the EU. These things are still real risks, even though in terms of policy, Trump has deferred more to orthodox conservative and neoliberal advisors than I expected.
Second, it's still early days, and much of the growth we're seeing has nothing to do with Trump, but merely continues the trend from the Obama administration.
Third, Republicans are jacking up the economy with aggressive deregulation and tax cuts. They have for example removed most of the rules put in place after 2007-2008 to try to prevent the abuses that led to the financial crisis. (Among them the rule that financial advisors for retirement accounts have a duty to act in the best interest of their clients. Yes, Trump and the GOP felt it was a priority to make sure that Wall Street is allowed to scam people out of their retirement savings.) Measures such as these are like giving the economy cocaine: sure, it feels great for a while, but you're heading for an inevitable crash. Economists are already starting to talk about another bubble. And as I said:
Deep tax cuts lead to giant deficits, and to cuts in government programs and staffing.
A tax giveaway almost entirely to the rich and corporations, adding trillions to the deficit. Yeah, there's no way that's going to come back to bite America in the ass...
The bottom line is that I still think Trump is disastrous for the economy in the long run, but if he only serves one term he might get away with it during his presidency, and leave it to his successor to deal with the mess he's created.
One thing I think I was wrong about was my prediction that:
Trump's shtick wears thin very quickly even for many who voted for him. His approval ratings fall to somewhere around the George W. Bush low point of 25%.
Unless there is an economic crisis or an unpopular war, I no longer think that's very likely to happen. America is so polarized, and fealty to the Dear Leader is such an important identity marker for the right (just witness the way they'll tear apart any of their own who shows disloyalty, from Jeff Flake to Steve Bannon), that I think Trump's base will stick with him almost no matter what. That base is probably somewhere between 30-35% of the population.
Post by: Mandle on 09 Jan 2018, 23:39
It just shows how easily people are misinformed and will believe anything that supports their own preconceived notions.
And a recent poll on Gorilla TV showed that not a single ape believed a word of it.
People so silly.
Post by: Stupot on 26 May 2019, 12:11
(http://i.imgur.com/qA8uKPZ.jpg)
Post by: WHAM on 26 May 2019, 13:38
Post by: Stupot on 26 May 2019, 15:55
<Deleted, holy hell why was there a thread this old bumped to the top? Sorry!>It wasn't necessary to start a new thread just to show off that I had seen a man from 100 meters away.
Plus he's been in power a while now. It'd be a good chance to reflect on some of the stuff we were saying 3 years ago. Did the predictions come true? Did some of us over-react a little bit, or has it been even worse? Do we have any new predictions? And what's going on with that wall?
Post by: milkanannan on 26 May 2019, 18:53
Post by: Stupot on 27 May 2019, 00:30
That's crazy you were that close. What was the security like getting in there?It was my first time at the sumo so I have no reference for comparison but we all had to have our bags checked and go through metal detectors. There was a large police presence and a also lot of men (both Japanese and American) in sharp suits putting their hand up to their earpiece every so often. The vending machines were all out of action, too.
I had heard that they were even going to be doing background checks on the people sitting close to where Trump would be sitting. I don't know if that's true and it shouldn't have affected me anyway because I was sitting much further away. Nevertheless, I got a bit paranoid the other day and deleted some of my less friendly tweets to/about Trump.
Post by: Mandle on 27 May 2019, 01:13
Nevertheless, I got a bit paranoid the other day and deleted some of my less friendly tweets to/about Trump.
Which would have had the effect of making it look more like you were planning something suspicious if they had checked. (laugh)
Post by: Stupot on 21 Dec 2019, 04:08
How are we all feeling about the president now? Do we love/hate him more/less than we did three years ago? Are things as bad or worse than we thought they would be? Or are they better?
Will Trump win a 2nd term (assuming he isn't removed)? And if so, what does that mean for America and the world? And if not, do you think he will stand down humbly or refuse to leave and claim squatters rights in the White House?
Post by: Snarky on 21 Dec 2019, 09:18
Post by: mkennedy on 21 Dec 2019, 10:21
Post by: Jack on 21 Dec 2019, 13:02
So, Trump has officially been impeached
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/551f35d7aa5685a8a25318dbcde956cf/tenor.gif)
Nah, I don't feel like being called a Trump supporter for trying to explain something.
Have you guys worked out how you're going to support Biden yet?
Post by: ManicMatt on 21 Dec 2019, 13:41
Post by: Khris on 22 Dec 2019, 01:45
Post by: Mandle on 22 Dec 2019, 13:03
About as expected, I would say. Some things a bit worse, some things a bit better. Overall, a complete shitshow.
Yeah, for the last 4 years it has just felt like something to endure like a dentist drill to a molar...
If he gets reelected then we get rooted in the canal for another 4.
Post by: Stupot on 22 Dec 2019, 14:37
Post by: Snarky on 09 Feb 2020, 11:14
Republicans may be close-minded racists, but they're not about to let their country go down the toilet on the say-so of a sentient croissant who's best pals with the Ruskies.
I don't think that prediction has been borne out.
Post by: Mandle on 09 Feb 2020, 11:45
Looking back…Republicans may be close-minded racists, but they're not about to let their country go down the toilet on the say-so of a sentient croissant who's best pals with the Ruskies.
I don't think that prediction has been borne out.
:~( :~( :~(
Post by: Jack on 09 Feb 2020, 13:04
So, Trump has officially been impeached
(wrong)
Gotta learn how stuff works if you don't want to keep losing elections. I hear Iowa is nice this time of year. :X
Post by: Snarky on 09 Feb 2020, 13:12
Post by: WHAM on 09 Feb 2020, 13:17
The process of impeachment and removal exists to remove a president from office in a situation where said presidents actions are deemed by both houses, with considerable majority that pretty much has to cross party lines somewhere. Thus it can only be expected to produce the result of removal only in a situation where the presidents actions are deemed dire and harmful to the nation by both parties, not just one of the two parties. Him having done "something wrong" is also not enough of a reason to dismiss, as long as that wrong does not constitute a considerable harm to the nation as a whole, or else quite a few presidents would have been removed from office, including Clinton back in his day.
And now...
Watching the Democrats fail to put forward a candidate the public can abide by.
Watching the rushed attempt at impeachment and removal fall flat just as expected.
Watching the Democrats get called out for massive miscalculations and failures in their caucusing.
I had folk laughing at me in 2016 when I said Trump might well win the presidency, but as we are in an election year again...
* clears throat *
FOUR - MORE - YEARS!
EDIT: removed a few redundant words.
Post by: Jack on 09 Feb 2020, 13:37
miscalculations
This is generous. Some candidates are allowed to run and others not. Ask Ron Paul.
What's surprising is that the DNC eventually pick candidates so obviously bad, that the ringer wins.
Post by: Snarky on 09 Feb 2020, 13:48
"Crony nullification" seems like a mischaracterization.
"Jury nullification" is when a jury refuses to convict a defendant even though they know he is guilty.
Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution provides for impeachment of a president for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers that "high crimes and misdemeanors" means: "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
There is no real dispute that Trump did what he was accused of – and that it was, according to the Government Accountability Office, illegal. There is strong evidence (though the Senate refused to hear some of it) that his motive was to gain personal political advantage. This would, by consensus of legal scholars and as a number of Senators have acknowledged, be precisely the sort of abuse of power that "high crimes and misdemeanor" refers to.
Knowing he is guilty and that the acts amount to the sort of crime the Constitution envisioned, they were duty-bound to convict, having taken an oath where they "solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws: So help me God."
52 Republican senators broke their oath. You can argue about the political realities all you want, but that is as plain a case of nullification as there is. If they sincerely felt that this wasn't a serious enough case of a high crime or misdemeanor to warrant removal, that would still be nullification; in that case they could have compromised on a motion of censure, as Senator Manchin proposed. They weren't even willing to do that.
And given that senators like McConnell, Graham and others others openly colluded with the defense and declared that they would not be impartial, "crony nullification" seems like a perfectly apt term.
Is it surprising that almost the entire Republican party is prepared to betray the Republic for Trump (or more accurately, out of fear of his populist base)? Sadly, not at all. That does not mean it should not be considered shocking.
Post by: Jack on 09 Feb 2020, 13:53
"Jury nullification" is when a jury refuses to convict a defendant even though they know he is guilty.
Could you say this defendant was ever convicted? No.
An attempt was made.
Post by: Stupot on 09 Feb 2020, 14:57
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/551f35d7aa5685a8a25318dbcde956cf/tenor.gif)So, Trump has officially been impeached(wrong)
Gotta learn how stuff works if you don't want to keep losing elections. I hear Iowa is nice this time of year. :X
Post by: Khris on 09 Feb 2020, 19:44
Also:
Post by: Jack on 09 Feb 2020, 20:00
Post by: milkanannan on 04 Nov 2020, 05:21
Post by: Slasher on 04 Nov 2020, 05:51
There is a lot going on behind the scenes, some YOU can see and some YOU can't.... Either way....I hope you make the right choice....
Khris has a good point...
I can't say too much here but let's hope the future turns good...
Post by: Khris on 04 Nov 2020, 08:08
Here's the best take I've seen so far: https://twitter.com/ppredictors/status/1323862826495168513
It's also the only one I've seen since I woke up 10 minutes ago.
Post by: Stupot on 04 Nov 2020, 10:49
Yeah, slasher is fully Q-pilled ;) (don't know, just guessing, and all I said was that Trump is an unwitting fascist)Trump tried exactly this. I think he intended to come out and say "I've won the election" but he ended up saying "As far as I'm concerned, we won." which leaves wiggle room for him to deny that he actually "claimed" victory. He bottled it (which I'm glad about, but he might try again more assertively next time).
Here's the best take I've seen so far: https://twitter.com/ppredictors/status/1323862826495168513
It's also the only one I've seen since I woke up 10 minutes ago.
Post by: Olleh19 on 04 Nov 2020, 12:23
What they both have to say about my native country. Did a while ago, thought it was fiting in this thread ;)
A Swedish professor said that Biden is mentally retarded. I died laughing, in national tv too! (laugh)
All i can think is. Let's pretend this Biden actually wins. He is so old, in fact he is very old. Even older then Trump. He could get dementia, or already have it (probably what the professor actually meant to say in Swedish tv.
I can't get my head around the fact that two Very old people are about to to run a country. are there no better alternatives? (wrong)
Post by: eri0o on 04 Nov 2020, 13:45
Post by: Blondbraid on 04 Nov 2020, 15:57
This movie poster came to my mind:
Post by: Jack on 04 Nov 2020, 19:27
Post by: Snarky on 04 Nov 2020, 20:08
Just to remind people that this is the General Discussion forum, and that there is a separate forum for memes and such. Use your words.
</mod hat>
Also, in general please place large images behind spoiler tags to avoid disrupting the reading flow of the thread.
Post by: Slasher on 04 Nov 2020, 23:16
Post by: Mandle on 05 Nov 2020, 00:04
I don't know why some people make fun of this topic... This is more important than you know...
So, if it's more important than we know, how do you know it's more important than we know? Where is this secret information?
Post by: Reiter on 05 Nov 2020, 01:51
I don't know why some people make fun of this topic... This is more important than you know...
I can only speak for myself, but humour is one of those things that makes our burdens lighter. This is jolly important, hence why it is of vital importance that you should be prepared to laugh at it.
Because truly, what else is there to do but laugh? This is a farce, and we are all in the boxes together and I imagine that I am not alone in feeling that it is rather dragging on by now and I want a change in scenery. It is, of course, a very important farce that will influence fates and decisions across the world, but a serious matter can stand some jeering and cackling. Frankly, it never deserved being too important to not be taken lightly. It was ridiculous five years ago, it remains so now, only the laughter comes with a more wry and bitter tone now than it did then.
But then, was it ever different? Some things are quite timeless.
(I do hope these words are enough to post a little picture in between)
To be frank and stern for a moment, I do hope this will be the end of it. I cannot say that Mr Biden strikes me as a particularly exciting candidate, but as long as he is the man to sweep up the china after the elephant bull, it will be quite alright. Meanwhile, Mr Trump may cultivate a less dangerous hobby, perhaps. Like television. We shall see. Lord willing, he will lose interest. The election is not over yet, of course, but I think we can allow ourselves to hope that it will not be as violent and disorderly as it was feared. Maybe.
Post by: Mandle on 05 Nov 2020, 10:08
Okay, people have been saying so for a few months now, but I have finally started to believe it.
2020 might be some kind of weird alternate fictional universe.
Because right now I'm watching a new Jim Jarmusch film with Bill Murray, Adam Driver, Danny Glover, Steve Buscemi, Selena Gomez, Iggy Pop, and Tom Waits, and it's a super-gory zombie movie.
This does not seem possible to me in the real world.
Post by: Khris on 05 Nov 2020, 11:07
The only positive thing about him is that he isn't famous for enabling people who will believe absolutely anything, no matter how stupid and obviously untrue.
Case in point: Sharpiegate. Just the absolute dumbest shit in a long string of dumb shit. If you had a nice day so far, don't google it.
Post by: Stupot on 05 Nov 2020, 11:16
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSPtlxpEu4f-RY8P9WBMeqC0JiW4SUQE8GXpA&usqp=CAU)
Post by: Khris on 05 Nov 2020, 11:29
Post by: Stupot on 05 Nov 2020, 11:37
It's this: https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1324045463973203969
Yeah, I Googled it. They are clutching at straws.
Post by: Olleh19 on 05 Nov 2020, 12:19
Recognise this. He might have slight dementia, or already have it cause of his old age. Same with Trump.
What is going on in the USA?
(laugh)
Post by: Furwerkstudio on 05 Nov 2020, 13:14
I don't know if i'm alone thinking about this but Biden's age. Will he be the oldest president to ever rule the USA if he sits for 4years or even more? He will be over 80years old.
Recognise this. He might have slight dementia, or already have it cause of his old age. Same with Trump.
What is going on in the USA?
(laugh)
Sad thing is most Americans are afraid of younger people, as in those who are in late Baby boomers, Generation X, Millennial, Doomers era and honestly think they do not have the "wisdom and experience" to handle running a country despite evidence of the contrary. A more cynical piece of me says it's the aging Yuppies/proto-yuppies/boomers/suburbanites squeezing every ounce of power of the situation and crashing everything before they HAVE to give up the reigns, but again that migh be too cynical.
Post by: LimpingFish on 05 Nov 2020, 18:52
It also doesn't help that the GOP is almost entirely comprised of smackable faces.
Post by: Cassiebsg on 05 Nov 2020, 18:56
turn off the TV and play some free games right here in this forum. (laugh)
It's not like we can do anything about it anyway.
Post by: Jack on 05 Nov 2020, 20:07
Post by: Olleh19 on 05 Nov 2020, 20:34
I have the perfect solution for you!
turn off the TV and play some free games right here in this forum. (laugh)
It's not like we can do anything about it anyway.
Exactly, play some games. Avoid my game. Then you'll find yourself with a broken tv, and a broken computer monitor, perhaps.
(laugh) Or you'll get to laugh at the white house what happens behind closed doors. :)
I myself? I'm gonna play a Lucasarts title i've actually never played. Zakk Mckracken
Post by: TheFrighter on 06 Nov 2020, 08:17
Did you know that the Proud Boys, pratically the white suprematist party and great fans of Trump, took their name by this Disney song? 8-0
US racist sometimes are weird... (wtf)
_
Post by: KyriakosCH on 06 Nov 2020, 10:16
Post by: Snarky on 06 Nov 2020, 11:06
The result is going to be razor-thin in Georgia and Arizona, so they are almost certainly headed for recounts, which might in fact flip the outcome there. But in practice, the election will be called once it's clear that one of the candidates has won enough states by a clear enough margin to get to 270 electoral votes, and currently it looks like once all votes are counted, Biden will have won Pennsylvania by a big enough margin to put it out of reach for Trump, which means he doesn't have to rely on either of them. (The chance that a Wisconsin recount will change the outcome there is also negligible.)
The election result will probably be called today, once Biden passes Trump in the Pennsylvania count. I don't expect Trump to concede, but I think there'll be general agreement that Biden has won the election, even among Republicans (even as some rave about fraud), and he'll find himself isolated.
Post by: Monsieur OUXX on 06 Nov 2020, 16:17
Dong
The witch is dead
HA HA HA
HO HO HO
Post by: Jack on 06 Nov 2020, 17:59
I don't expect Trump to concede, but I think there'll be general agreement that Biden has won the election, even among Republicans (even as some rave about fraud), and he'll find himself isolated.
I think there's a good chance they are charging you up in a frenzy of victory over "muh drumpf evil nazi cheeto", and will flip the result back after some time. This will ensure the most amount of damage.
Post by: Snarky on 06 Nov 2020, 18:50
The evil cabal that secretly runs the world, and which—for example—determines not just the final result of the vote count (which is being tallied up across hundreds if not thousands of local sites all over America, under observation by representatives of both parties), but how it will progress hour-by-hour.
Who are we talking here, specifically? Bill Gates? George Soros? Anthony Fauci? Tom Hanks?
Anyway, I do appreciate whenever these conspiracy theories produce actual testable predictions. Not that I expect it will make a difference when proven false.
(Edit: typo)
Post by: Jack on 06 Nov 2020, 19:02
Harris might win it. I think she's merely insurance, I could be wrong. Trump would be lucky to get out now.
Post by: eri0o on 06 Nov 2020, 20:41
The Democrats I think intend for Biden to step out and let Kamala in, and my guess is once she becomes president she will feel pressured to work with both Democrats and Republican interests in mind to keep the word of not having a partisan agenda. Trump thrives in opposition and it's hard to be opposition when you are the one in power. Still, Trump would have won if he did not had decided to shoot his own foot by dismissing the mail in ballots. I did not really understood that strategy.
The Republicans didn't appear to have a plan set for next 4 years, so while the new government works recovering the economy (with the Republicans in senate maintaining the government in check) they will figure out a strategy for what to do in 4 years to win the election. On the other hand the Democrats will not be able to plan forward but will have the machine in hands, and owning the machine is powerful for gathering votes. On the next 4 years, every misstep will fuel the Republican come back in 2024. Trump will probably not be around by then, so we can expect it will be a different narrative.
Overall, I just hope for some stability in US so we can have stability here.
Post by: Mandle on 07 Nov 2020, 10:06
On the next 4 years, every misstep will fuel the Republican come back in 2024. Trump will probably not be around by then, so we can expect it will be a different narrative.
Both Trump and Biden will officially be too old in 2024 to run again. I'm not sure if this rule applies to a standing president though, but Trump is done if/when he loses this one.
Post by: Snarky on 07 Nov 2020, 11:00
The Democrats I think intend for Biden to step out and let Kamala in
What Democrats? And how are they planning to make this happen?
Biden has wanted to be president since he was a kid. As long as he's capable of doing the job—and Trump has not set the "capable" bar very high—he's not going to step down willingly. And trying to force him out against his will would be an ugly process that would doom their candidate in the next election and probably wouldn't work anyway. (See all the cockamamie schemes proposed by Never-Trumper conservatives, which never went anywhere for very obvious reasons.)
Of course, he is pretty damn old, so it's certainly possible that Harris will have to step in at some point. (And I suppose there is a scenario where he declines to run for reelection and steps down around early 2024 so that Harris can campaign as the incumbent, but I think his ego will resist that pretty fiercely.)
and my guess is once she becomes president she will feel pressured to work with both Democrats and Republican interests in mind to keep the word of not having a partisan agenda.
Obama also campaigned on "bringing the US together," and he tried to work with Republicans on bipartisan legislation. The GOP would have none of it, with their focus ensuring he would be a one-term president, doing all they could to sabotage the economic recovery and stop healthcare reform in order to keep him from having accomplishments to point to.
Whether Biden/Harris genuinely believe they can work with Republicans or just thought it would play well on the campaign trail, reality is going to hit hard. Get ready for at least two years of gridlock.
Trump thrives in opposition and it's hard to be opposition when you are the one in power.
Yes. What Trump will do once out of office (or, indeed, in the lame-duck period until the inauguration), and the extent to which his cult of personality will endure remains in my view the biggest wildcard of the next four years.
Still, Trump would have won if he did not had decided to shoot his own foot by dismissing the mail in ballots. I did not really understood that strategy.
Eh, maybe. But there's not really any evidence that it significantly depressed overall turnout for his supporters (which ended up higher than anticipated): they just showed up on election day instead. If there had been major issues with election-day voting that left people unable to cast their vote you could've argued that his strategy backfired, but that didn't happen. (Overall, the actual election process went off better than expected.)
The Republicans didn't appear to have a plan set for next 4 years
Their party program was literally just "support Donald Trump, demonize the media, own the libs!"
so while the new government works recovering the economy (with the Republicans in senate maintaining the government in check)
It's not 100% determined that Republicans will hold the Senate, though that's clearly the most likely outcome. I also think "maintaining the government in check" is a pretty generous way to describe "sabotage everything."
they will figure out a strategy for what to do in 4 years to win the election. On the other hand the Democrats will not be able to plan forward but will have the machine in hands, and owning the machine is powerful for gathering votes.
First there are the midterms in two years, which could change the situation in Congress. I'm also not convinced that holding the presidency gives any great advantage for "gathering votes" (unless you're prepared to blatantly violate any number of laws and corrupt the office, the way the Trump administration did), except for giving your candidate more credibility as the incumbent. Which will only be a factor if Biden runs again, or Harris actually takes over at some point in the term.
Both Trump and Biden will officially be too old in 2024 to run again. I'm not sure if this rule applies to a standing president though, but Trump is done if/when he loses this one.
I'm not sure whether you were speaking literally, but to be clear: there is no upper age limit on presidential candidates. So there's nothing keeping either of them from running again in 2024, as long as they're alive and people are willing to vote for them.
Post by: Mandle on 07 Nov 2020, 11:35
Both Trump and Biden will officially be too old in 2024 to run again. I'm not sure if this rule applies to a standing president though, but Trump is done if/when he loses this one.
I'm not sure whether you were speaking literally, but to be clear: there is no upper age limit on presidential candidates. So there's nothing keeping either of them from running again in 2024, as long as they're alive and people are willing to vote for them.
Yeah, I guess I misheard or misinterpreted something someone said.
Post by: Jack on 07 Nov 2020, 13:32
The Democrats I think intend for Biden to step out and let Kamala in
What Democrats? And how are they planning to make this happen?
But seriously, it seems that you see nothing odd about the democrats choosing a borderline unelectable candidate like Biden, over others that probably could have beat Trump, like Sanders or Gabbard. But here is a message from Earth: he was a terrible choice for a candidate, and the only way he makes sense as a choice is to be a stand-in for someone who can't be legally elected to that office.
As for how, he will probably bow out for health reasons, or just die. It would be quite a believable story if it weren't so utterly convenient.
Post by: Snarky on 07 Nov 2020, 16:26
(We're quickly headed towards the sort of conspiracy mongering that is banned on this forum.)
I actually wrote up a whole response, but on reflection, I think it's better not to engage.
And just as I post this, I get an update that CNN has called the election for Biden. Took a bit longer than I expected, but there it is.
Post by: Danvzare on 07 Nov 2020, 16:37
Right, Hillary Clinton is planning to assassinate Joe Biden so that Kamala Harris can be a puppet for Barack Obama. (roll)Wouldn't it make more sense to just... wait. :-\
(We're not exactly talking about someone who is young, fit, and healthy here.)
Post by: heltenjon on 07 Nov 2020, 16:55
But seriously, it seems that you see nothing odd about the democrats choosing a borderline unelectable candidate like Biden, over others that probably could have beat Trump, like Sanders or Gabbard. But here is a message from Earth: he was a terrible choice for a candidate,
Come on. The unelectable candidate just got more votes than anyone before him. Sanders dropped out from the nomination race when he had no realistic hope of winning. These nominations are miniature elections in themselves, and while there are several matters that seem odd from abroad, like that you have to be filthy rich to participate, they're not really determined by "the party". (Like European parties choose their candidates.)
Quote
and the only way he makes sense as a choice is to be a stand-in for someone who can't be legally elected to that office.
Do you know something about Kamala Harris that I don't? She was in the nomination race herself. Of course she's legally electable.
Quote
As for how, he will probably bow out for health reasons, or just die. It would be quite a believable story if it weren't so utterly convenient.He's old. I give you that. But I doubt Biden's plan is to die or retire. (laugh) Choosing Harris for vice president has more to do with appealing to a broad spectrum of the voting public.
Post by: eri0o on 07 Nov 2020, 16:58
And just as I post this, I get an update that CNN has called the election for Biden. Took a bit longer than I expected, but there it is.
This is good news! Snarky, just to be clear, I agree with everything on your answer to me. I think you may have misread me. Hope you have a great day. :)
Best quote I read today on the good results is: "Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing... after they've tried everything else"
Post by: Reiter on 07 Nov 2020, 17:22
One should not discount the elderly. Youth does not need to hamper a leader, but neither needs age. Mr Biden has been in this line of work for years, and seventy seven is not the age it used to be. I do believe that death will pass him by for some time. He may die on his post, but then, so might his vice president before him, or anyone else. That mournful angel defies expectations, as Mr Biden could attest. We cannot know.
Nonetheless, onwards for Groggy Joe! Hurrah! Hurrah! It will be a pleasant thing to have such a thing as decency and calm at the top of the tree again.
I wonder, however, what manner of devilry Mr Trump may get up to, for these following three months. He is apparently at one of his golf courses, at time of writing. They would be wise to change the lock to the white house while they can. Not to mention, things will be rather messy from now on, no matter what. Political dead-lock is just the start of it.
If I may be briefly partisan, mr Trump's chief talent as a political entity has been to short-circuit ordinarly political business and diplomacy by sheer force of nastiness and blazing egotism. No trick too knavish, no target too low, no knot too thick to cut. This sheer, childlike method of rule by bullying is the true danger, and I can only hope that it is going out with its main proponent. That governing by semi-concious tweeting is a method found wanting and abolished. Only hope. Without that malign influence, there may be a chance to restore a political apparatus that work, and a household divided that can at least stand one another's presence.
Unless, of course, someone else pick up the very same method.
Post by: Olleh19 on 07 Nov 2020, 17:26
Right, Hillary Clinton is planning to assassinate Joe Biden so that Kamala Harris can be a puppet for Barack Obama. (roll)
(We're quickly headed towards the sort of conspiracy mongering that is banned on this forum.)
I actually wrote up a whole response, but on reflection, I think it's better not to engage.
And just as I post this, I get an update that CNN has called the election for Biden. Took a bit longer than I expected, but there it is.
As for all heated internet discussions one have learnt it's usually better to not engage. I've done the same so many times. Wrote a long response, only to decide not to post it, at all. Waste of time. All you get? Higher bloodpressure, and rarely no satisfaction of a clear argumentation win. Cause the other idiot will never lay down the battle axe and say "You've won, wow what an epic reply!". They will have some stupid comeback, almost always. Trumps wall was the dumbest. I remember how i told friends "Oh, the talk about the wall that's just bs, he talks like that to sound bad ass, he'll never do it.". Then he actually did it. (wrong) Couldn't believe it (laugh).
Post by: Jack on 07 Nov 2020, 17:58
Sanders dropped out from the nomination race when he had no realistic hope of winning.
No, this is just plain wrong. Sanders threw his considerable grassroots base behind the chosen candidate both times. This is one way "the party" chooses the candidate.
Are you seriously suggesting that those that grit their teeth to vote for Biden just out of hate for Trump wouldn't be happy to vote for someone like Sanders?
Post by: heltenjon on 07 Nov 2020, 18:26
I guess I should have worded it "no realistic hope of winning the nomination". Sanders, by the looks of it, chose to urge his followers to vote for the chosen democrat candidate to avoid splitting the party. That's the common practice in recent years, if I've understood it correctly. It's been suggested that Obama recommended this course of action...which is not a conspiracy as far as I'm concerned. Tactics, maybe.Sanders dropped out from the nomination race when he had no realistic hope of winning.No, this is just plain wrong. Sanders threw his considerable grassroots base behind the chosen candidate both times. This is one way "the party" chooses the candidate.
Quote
Are you seriously suggesting that those that grit their teeth to vote for Biden just out of hate for Trump wouldn't be happy to vote for someone like Sanders?Are you seriously suggesting that I'm suggesting that? (laugh) It's quite out of my comprehension that Hillary Clinton didn't win the last time. Seen from outside the US, any candidate ought to beat Trump, and Sanders especially. But then again, left-wing politicians in the US would be far right in Scandinavia. The political landscapes are vastly different.
Post by: Jack on 07 Nov 2020, 18:37
I guess I should have worded it "no realistic hope of winning the nomination".
Which is still wrong. Sanders was leading key polls a week before the nomination, with Biden running 3rd.
Post by: Snarky on 07 Nov 2020, 19:00
Snarky, just to be clear, I agree with everything on your answer to me. I think you may have misread me. Hope you have a great day. :)
I may have. I'd have had no problem respectfully disagreeing, but I'm happy to be in agreement as well. :-D
I've had a pretty good day, thanks. I finally found some curtains I like for my kitchen and now I'm eating pizza and getting pleasantly drunk. Hope you're doing well too!
Right, Hillary Clinton is planning to assassinate Joe Biden so that Kamala Harris can be a puppet for Barack Obama. (roll)Wouldn't it make more sense to just... wait. :-\
(We're not exactly talking about someone who is young, fit, and healthy here.)
Fun fact: Joe Biden is four years older than Bill Clinton, who was elected president back in 1992. He'll be the first president from the "Silent Generation" (those born 1928–1945).
Is it too early to draft Jimmy Carter as a candidate for 2024? Make America Greatest Generation Again!
I guess I should have worded it "no realistic hope of winning the nomination".
Which is still wrong. Sanders was leading key polls a week before the nomination, with Biden running 3rd.
A week before the nomination nobody was polling that question because Biden had clinched it long ago. If you mean a week before Sanders put his campaign on hold, making Biden the presumptive nominee… you're still wrong. That was on April 8, and at that time Biden had had a lead in polls and primary results that was, realistically speaking, insurmountable for the last month.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/
There was about a three-week period in February when Sanders was in the lead and Biden in second (or perhaps very briefly in third), but for the rest of the year-long campaign, Biden led consistently.
Post by: Jack on 07 Nov 2020, 20:11
A week before the nomination nobody was polling that question because Biden had clinched it long ago. If you mean a week before Sanders put his campaign on hold, making Biden the presumptive nominee… you're still wrong. That was on April 8, and at that time Biden had had a lead in polls and primary results that was, realistically speaking, insurmountable for the last month.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/
There was about a three-week period in February when Sanders was in the lead and Biden in second (or perhaps very briefly in third), but for the rest of the year-long campaign, Biden led consistently.
A little history on where those numbers came from, snarky
Sanders Seizes Lead in Volatile Iowa Race, Times Poll Finds (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/25/us/politics/democratic-iowa-poll-sanders.html) [nytimes.com]
The DNC can't steal the election from Bernie Sanders despite the Iowa chaos (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/05/the-dnc-cant-steal-the-election-from-bernie-sanders-despite-the-iowa-chaos) [theguardian.com]
Quote
This has been a confusing 24 hours, to say the least. The Iowa caucus appeared to go fine, but then a tabulating fiasco delayed official results. We’re still waiting on them.
The problem, in part, was rooted in a “Shadow Inc” application used to help tally the votes. The app had gotten attention in the weeks before the caucus, with experts worrying that it could be vulnerable to hacking.
More detail on the "errors"
Bernie Got Robbed in Iowa, And It Could Throw Fuel on His War With the Democrats (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkekkv/bernie-got-robbed-in-iowa-so-hes-at-war-with-the-democrats-again) [vice.com]
Post by: Snarky on 07 Nov 2020, 20:40
Post by: heltenjon on 07 Nov 2020, 20:48
I guess I should have worded it "no realistic hope of winning the nomination".
Which is still wrong. Sanders was leading key polls a week before the nomination, with Biden running 3rd.
You've won, wow what an epic reply! I now realize that Sanders stopped his campaign for no reason at all. (laugh)
Seriously, though. I can't read his mind, of course, but Sanders seems more inclined to sacrifice personal positions in favour of political breakthroughs. It looks to me that the Democratic Party as a whole is moving slowly towards his ideas.
Post by: Khris on 09 Nov 2020, 10:35
First somebody accidentally booked "Four Seasons Total Landscaping" in the industrial part of Philadelphia for a press conference instead of the Four Seasons hotel. They went through with it, on a parking lot between a cremation center and a sex shop.
QAnon followers quickly declared that this location was not an accident but picked because Giuliani planned to uncover a scheme to launder $8000 in Democrat donations, or that Republican ballots had been burned in the cremation center.
Right now, Trump's team is making the point that the next president is determined by the election, not the press; they are using an image of the front page of the Washington Post from 2000 which has a big fat "President Gore" headline and photograph. The problem is that the image is doctored but whoever faked it didn't bother with the actual text which clearly names George W. Bush as winner of the election, meaning the proof it's a fake is in the image itself.
You just can't make that shit up.
Post by: Stupot on 10 Nov 2020, 02:37
I almost have a bit of respect for the actual folks behind QAnon. It must be quite funny to come up with this bullshit and watch it spread. Nothing they can come up with is even questioned by these believers. And yet they have the audacity to call the rest of us ‘sheep’ unironically for not buying into it.
Post by: Snarky on 10 Nov 2020, 07:03
Post by: Danvzare on 10 Nov 2020, 16:43
I'm glad and relieved that Trump lost the election.Same here. Maybe now all media can stop it with the whole "Trump's America is bad" thing.
I mean I got it, he's horrible and you don't want him to be president, now stop ramming the same message into absolutely everything!
I like variety in my media!
Post by: Mandle on 10 Nov 2020, 23:00
I'm glad and relieved that Trump lost the election. But this Four Seasons thing sparks joy. I've been laughing about it for days.
Just when I thought I could stop laughing, Noah Trevor made the joke "Just imagine a poor guy inside that sex shop and every news network in America shows up next door." and I was off again.
Post by: Stupot on 11 Nov 2020, 01:40
Trump is purging the Pentagon (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/pentagon-policy-official-resigns/index.html) and replacing everybody with ass-lickers. He ain’t planning on leaving the White House without a fight and it’s going to get ugly. I don’t want the title of this thread to come true, but until Biden (or Harris, or anyone) is safely installed in the Oval Office, I will remain very nervous for all of us.
Post by: Mandle on 11 Nov 2020, 03:17
I’ve got a bad feeling about this.
Trump is purging the Pentagon (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/pentagon-policy-official-resigns/index.html) and replacing everybody with ass-lickers. He ain’t planning on leaving the White House without a fight and it’s going to get ugly. I don’t want the title of this thread to come true, but until Biden (or Harris, or anyone) is safely installed in the Oval Office, I will remain very nervous for all of us.
Or, he's trying to get a bunch of his "plants" in place so he still has a word in things even after he's gone.
Post by: Jack on 11 Nov 2020, 17:19
Trump is purging the Pentagon (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/pentagon-policy-official-resigns/index.html) and replacing everybody with ass-lickers.
He's replacing the ball-suckers with ass-lickers? Invest in the tic-tac company.
Maybe he should flip over all the couch cushions and see if he can find the 2.3 Trillion dollars Donald Rumsfeld "lost" in the pentagon.
Post by: Ali on 11 Nov 2020, 22:00
Trump is purging the Pentagon (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/pentagon-policy-official-resigns/index.html) and replacing everybody with ass-lickers.
He's replacing the ball-suckers with ass-lickers? Invest in the tic-tac company.
Maybe he should flip over all the couch cushions and see if he can find the 2.3 Trillion dollars Donald Rumsfeld "lost" in the pentagon.
I can't tell you how much more readable this thread would be if it weren't for the constant barrage of portentous non-sequiturs like this. What does it mean?
"Donald Trump is trying to steal the election? Ho, ho, ho, well 19 years ago some other thing happened."
Post by: Blondbraid on 11 Nov 2020, 22:53
I already lost track of where this discussion was going way back in 2016.Trump is purging the Pentagon (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/pentagon-policy-official-resigns/index.html) and replacing everybody with ass-lickers.
He's replacing the ball-suckers with ass-lickers? Invest in the tic-tac company.
Maybe he should flip over all the couch cushions and see if he can find the 2.3 Trillion dollars Donald Rumsfeld "lost" in the pentagon.
I can't tell you how much more readable this thread would be if it weren't for the constant barrage of portentous non-sequiturs like this. What does it mean?
"Donald Trump is trying to steal the election? Ho, ho, ho, well 19 years ago some other thing happened."
Post by: Stupot on 12 Nov 2020, 03:08
Post by: Mandle on 12 Nov 2020, 07:11
@Jack. Forget Donald Rumsfeld. Are you not at least a little bit nervous about what Trump might be up to? Because I am. And if you genuinely think I shouldn’t be, please tell me why. It would be a weight off my mind.
I'm pretty sure you saw what I posted on Facebook about my own worries about what is currently happening. Pretty much that I'm scared Trump is attempting to stage a coup from within The White House. He is attempting legal routes with the courts etc. but those are only backup plans with no likelihood of panning out. He'll take it if he can get it of course, but I think he actually imagines he can stay in power by any means possible. I doubt that he will be able to, but the scary thing is that he thinks he will be able to.
I also said that I hope Biden and Harris are being careful to stay safe.
Now, if I had said something that far-out at any other time, people would have posted that I had seen too many movies, or was letting my imagination run away with itself. So far, nobody has said anything like that.
Such are the times we live in. I doubt that Biden or Harris are actually in any danger, but I can't say that it's outside the realm of possibility either.
Post by: Jack on 12 Nov 2020, 23:47
"Donald Trump is trying to steal the election? Ho, ho, ho, well 19 years ago some other thing happened."
You will fail to understand this too, but just because I'm not foaming at the mouth, does not mean I'm a fan of Trump. I have basically no respect for him, but I have to recognise his social acumen, a lot of which is probably the work of some campaign guy. He exploits ancient archetypes that has a huge effect on stupid people especially. Before you snicker into your soy milk, look in the mirror. On the imageboards they say he lives in his opponents' heads rent-free, and that's the truth. You have Trump on the brain. Have you ever heard the expression "there's no such thing as bad press?" If you did, maybe you didn't really understand what they meant.
Now you will probably interpret this as "everybody who hates Trump is stupid, huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhh" because what you have is a one-track mind. You basically hate about half the people in your country. Do you see a problem with this? No, you don't.
I spit every time I see the pentagon's name because I have a memory longer than a goldfish.
@Jack. Forget Donald Rumsfeld. Are you not at least a little bit nervous about what Trump might be up to?
I am day by day coming to terms with what is going to happen. I post Doom Paul memes unironically because they fully express what is left to say. This applies no matter who wins the election (it's Trump, BTW). We couldn't stop it.
Blindly reacting out of fear, people like you will supply half the energy that will tear nations apart and set the world to war that will kill billions of people.
Post by: Ali on 13 Nov 2020, 00:35
You will fail to understand this too, but just because I'm not foaming at the mouth, does not mean I'm a fan of Trump. I have basically no respect for him, but I have to recognise his social acumen, a lot of which is probably the work of some campaign guy. He exploits ancient archetypes that has a huge effect on stupid people especially. Before you snicker into your soy milk, look in the mirror. On the imageboards they say he lives in his opponents' heads rent-free, and that's the truth. You have Trump on the brain. Have you ever heard the expression "there's no such thing as bad press?" If you did, maybe you didn't really understand what they meant.
I don't think you're a fan of Trump. I think you're a fan of making aloof generalisations, semi-ironic insinuations and contributing absolutely nothing of value.
Post by: Stupot on 13 Nov 2020, 00:48
Post by: LimpingFish on 13 Nov 2020, 01:15
This applies no matter who wins the election (it's Trump, BTW).
Wait...What?
As to the rest of your post...meh. Trump is already talking about running again in 2024, is privately expressing little faith in any legal avenue actually bearing fruit, and likely thinks a "coup" is the noise a pigeon makes. Everything he's doing is a stalling tactic, as it looks much better for him to be forced out than to admit he lost. As to his most rabid supporters within the GOP, they're either setting themselves up for Trump 2.0 or they're actively courting that percentage of the 70m who voted for Trump, who they feel will follow Trump regardless of what party banner he runs under. Perhaps Trump with run as an independent next time. He certainly couldn't give a wet fart about being a Republican.
The most dangerous thing that comes out of this situation is a GOP that now understands exactly how to exploit half the population of the United States, with or without Trump, and any mini-Trumps they may have waiting in the wings; newer models that are smarter, prettier, and far more subtle in their insidious machinations.
The Democrats didn't underestimate Trump, they underestimated roughly 50% of their nation's willingness to vote against their own interest, for fear of letting the "other" get one over on them.
There will be no coup d'état, no evidence of voter fraud, no successful lawsuits, no do-over. Maybe that saddens you, as what I actually think you might be is a faux-anarchist, one whose personal philosophy may be based on the disappointments of life in general, rather than on actual anarchic beliefs. I could be wrong. Maybe you're just a troll. :-\
I bear no ill will towards you either way, but acting like you're the only one who see's through The Matrix and resigning yourself to watching the world burn is neither clever nor cool.
I doubt that Biden or Harris are actually in any danger, but I can't say that it's outside the realm of possibility either.
If there was any actual chance of such a thing happening, it certainly wouldn't come directly from Trump, his cronies, or the GOP. More likely from someone like those dillholes who surrounded the Biden Party Bus(TM) with their pickups.
The increased Secret Service presence, and no-fly zone over Delaware, are nothing out of the ordinary for a president-elect.
Post by: Mandle on 13 Nov 2020, 09:21
Post by: Jack on 13 Nov 2020, 14:06
I don't think you're a fan of Trump. I think you're a fan of making aloof generalisations, semi-ironic insinuations and contributing absolutely nothing of value.
Contribute nothing? I told you to prepare to support Joe Biden when none of your talking heads would dream of telling you that. I don't care about his political fortunes, I just hoped to have a chance to see you do it.
Grant me a little gallows humour in this situation, holy shit.
@Jack - I asked you a straight question and was rather hoping for a straight answer. You instead cut that question out of my quote and then proceeded to tell me that my expressing nerves about an unstable political situation is somehow going to cause World War 3.
That was my answer. You are worrying about something which has already been decided, and you have no conception of the real danger.
So what happens when the states in dispute start coming back, saying they found that some of the mail-in ballots had been duplicates, some for dead people, some were forged, and some never even existed, and that the new count means Trump is still president? Would you be angry, very angry, extremely angry? I mean Trump and his supporters have been working this thing behind the scenes, right? I presume the democrats have taken the opportunity this week to promise you everything someone like you ever wanted to hear, and I know the media has been treating the segregationist Joe Biden like the second coming. You don't even live in the US, and look at the effect it has on you. What would happen to America in this case?
Or maybe it'll just happen like they've been telling Mandle. Biden gets sent to the farm by another McLovin and Trump declares he can't leave the oval office with all the ensuing riots raging. I consider this less likely, but I guess it could happen. It's more likely to happen if the election is called in Biden's favour, which I still consider less likely than the government awarding Trump the presidency.
Many can't even conceive the possibility that Biden could still lose. This instilled rigidity will cause a break. Again I have to stress that I don't blame just one side of this artificial divide for what is going to happen, but pretty much everyone else on the other side have apparently decided to leave this community.
I bear no ill will towards you either way, but acting like you're the only one who see's through The Matrix and resigning yourself to watching the world burn is neither clever nor cool.
I admit I used to be someone who thought that someone else than the ultra rich could benefit from the world being struck by general anarchy, but I no longer think that way.
It's a crushing weight of horror that I am learning to deal with.
Post by: Snarky on 13 Nov 2020, 14:24
Post by: Ali on 13 Nov 2020, 16:53
Contribute nothing? I told you to prepare to support Joe Biden when none of your talking heads would dream of telling you that. I don't care about his political fortunes, I just hoped to have a chance to see you do it.
What does this mean? Who are you addressing? What talking heads?
Congratulations on predicting that one of the Democratic candidates would become the Democratic nominee, I guess. I don't think anyone thought Biden's selection was an outlandish prospect.
Post by: Jack on 14 Nov 2020, 11:49
So if your predictions don't come true, will you shut up, man?
You're the one that wanted me to post more than memes. A picture is worth a thousand words.
And I will say what I want. If you don't like it, make up some more rules after you ban me, bitch.
Post by: AGA on 14 Nov 2020, 12:43
Post by: Ali on 15 Nov 2020, 02:09
On topic, I still find it extraordinary we have ostensibly sensible commentators quibbling over whether the word 'coup' is appropriate. No, it hasn't gone that far and hopefully it won't. But it's naive to imagine it's impossible. The very idea of President Trump used to be impossible. What Trump is doing is such a blatant perversion of democratic norms, I can't see why anyone is continuing to normalise his narcissistic excess.
Post by: Danvzare on 16 Nov 2020, 18:46
Jack has now been banned for the third and final time.What? Really? 8-0
Well uh... I guess this is goodbye Jack.
Post by: Khris on 20 Nov 2020, 14:26
If only they had an actual case, but looking at him sweating bullets while their cases keep tanking in court is too funny.
There's another vid where he blows his nose, folds the handkerchief the wrong way, then wipes his entire head with the inside... just...
Also, Biden is already packing his cabinet with big oil shills and lobbyists and wallstreet scum and whatnot, like Michael McCabe (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/19/dear-joe-biden-are-you-kidding-me-erin-brockovich)
Why is everything?
Post by: mkennedy on 16 Dec 2020, 15:36
Post by: Stupot on 18 Dec 2020, 03:14
Now that the electoral college has certified Biden as the winner we are another step closer to the end of the trumpocalypse. But still don't let your guard down until Biden is actually sworn in near the end of the January.
I don’t think we’ve seen the last of Trump’s attempts to stay in power and I think things are gonna turn nasty in January but I have faith (especially since both the electoral college and the Supreme Court have spoken) that he will ultimately fail. Thankfully the US isn’t Russia where Putin can just keep moving the goalposts to keep himself in.
Post by: Khris on 18 Dec 2020, 10:56
Even if he's dead by then, the next Republican president will probably be even worse, as in, not bumbling idiot evil like Trump but more the Putin kind.
Post by: milkanannan on 18 Dec 2020, 16:14
Post by: Slasher on 19 Dec 2020, 09:31
Post by: mkennedy on 06 Jan 2021, 23:31
Post by: Galen on 07 Jan 2021, 01:00
On the positive side: I predict that Trump will expose most of the corruption in the American and worldwide political system through his sheer just stumbling around in a dark room and not knowing how to maintain the status quo of a coffee table over here or a lamp over there...This has quite clearly held up, though less in terms of the world stage and more in terms of literally every Republican politician bar Romney.
Having become President and commander of the armed forces, Trump's ego swells to even more grandiose proportions. He is hooked on the high of adulation, and responds to any criticism or attack with uncontrolled fury. Having alienated much of the political establishment (particularly the foreign policy establishment), his administration is short on expertise and full of extremists, sycophants and charlatans. His undisciplined, impulsive and downright foolish words and actions, as well as the missteps of the other unqualified administration members, cause numerous international and economic crises, to which his instinct is to respond with aggression and escalation. Hopefully his easy manipulability (just flatter him) and more rational actors in other countries manage to stop these crises from sparking wider war.Administration of sycophants. Abandoning of the Paris treaty and attacks on healthcare, deep tax cuts (for the wealthy), anti-trade policies against China that just hurt the USA, no real wall, massive social unrest centering around social justice - damn. I feel like Snarky actually managed to predict the George Floyd protests and riots. No GOP action against the blatant illegalities whatsoever, of course. Though the 'at first' has clearly died in a ditch unless we're counting "admitting the other guy won by a large margin". Illegalities dwarfing Watergate probably didn't even take until the 1 year mark, but it's certainly accelerated to lightspeed.
The US abandons many of its treaties, including the Iran treaty (so Iran resumes its nuclear weapons program), NAFTA (causing a loss in trade with Mexico that weakens the economy), the Paris climate change treaty (setting back any effective action to stop the ongoing global environmental disaster), and more. "Obamacare" is only partially abolished, but millions of Americans do lose their health care. Deep tax cuts lead to giant deficits, and to cuts in government programs and staffing. Anti-trade policies and attempts to "get tough" in trade negotiations with China and other countries lead to retributory policies that may escalate into a trade war. Together with the uncertainty caused by Trump's erratic behavior, this causes the economy to plunge into another recession.
On immigration, Trump's signature policies (the wall, deportation) are watered down or only carried out to a symbolic extent; most of his supporters don't notice, but some hardliners decry him as a traitor. In matters of social justice (police violence etc.), a Trump administration is unsympathetic and tin-eared, and this leads to increased social unrest. Killings both of cops and of black activists, by disturbed individuals who have been radicalized online, increase.
Coming into office as a sexual predator with a long list of scandals, a track record of fraud and illegality, not having isolated himself from his business interests, and with ties to organized crime, international fugitives and foreign oligarchs and dictators, Trump's administration quickly shows itself to be the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in memory, with Trump blatantly using the government to enrich himself. These scandals get considerable play in the media, but the GOP Congress is too craven and partisan to take any action to censure or rein him in, at least at first.
Already loathed and feared by half the country, Trump's shtick wears thin very quickly even for many who voted for him. His approval ratings fall to somewhere around the George W. Bush low point of 25%. Resentful and vindictive, he lashes out at his enemies and tries to use the powers of his office to get even with them. This leads to illegalities and abuses that dwarf Watergate.
... So, all around a fun few years ahead.
Quote
"Trump's shtick wears thin very quickly even for many who voted for him. His approval ratings fall to somewhere around the George W. Bush low point of 25%."Is the part it falls apart though. They just drank the Kool-Aid even harder. Heck, his approval rating is 42% as now. It actually rose since December from what I can see. The crazy train has no breaks, it's only getting stopped by everyone crashing into the side of a mountain and dying in the firey wreckage of 'actually attempting to stage an armed revolt'.
Lord all mighty, you think 2020 is finally over and then 2021 kicks your door in and smiles menacingly at you while brandishing an axe...
Post by: Stupot on 07 Jan 2021, 01:35
I think things are gonna turn nasty in JanuaryCalled it (not that it wasn’t obvious).
The real question now is will it settle down after Biden’s inauguration or will Trump’s cosplayers double down?
Post by: Snarky on 07 Jan 2021, 09:54
And, I suppose we must now add, whether his followers will continue their campaign of riots and insurrection and can achieve anything that way. (They might go on for a bit, but have no realistic chance of achieving anything except radicalizing themselves further, perhaps becoming a moderate terrorist threat.)
I have been appalled by the GOP's readiness to play with fire in supporting baseless (as most of them surely know) allegations that the election was rigged and suggesting they would overturn the results. "What's the harm in indulging him for a few weeks?" one was quoted as saying last year. At points yesterday it seemed like this would finally be the thing that caused his Congressional enablers to break with him, and a few have indeed taken the opportunity, but given the continued objections to the vote counts after the process was resumed, it seems there truly is no bridge too far.
Quote"Trump's shtick wears thin very quickly even for many who voted for him. His approval ratings fall to somewhere around the George W. Bush low point of 25%."Is the part it falls apart though. They just drank the Kool-Aid even harder. Heck, his approval rating is 42% as now. It actually rose since December from what I can see. The crazy train has no breaks, it's only getting stopped by everyone crashing into the side of a mountain and dying in the firey wreckage of 'actually attempting to stage an armed revolt'.
I feel compelled to point out that I retracted that part of my prediction three years ago:
One thing I think I was wrong about was my prediction that:Trump's shtick wears thin very quickly even for many who voted for him. His approval ratings fall to somewhere around the George W. Bush low point of 25%.
Unless there is an economic crisis or an unpopular war, I no longer think that's very likely to happen. America is so polarized, and fealty to the Dear Leader is such an important identity marker for the right (just witness the way they'll tear apart any of their own who shows disloyalty, from Jeff Flake to Steve Bannon), that I think Trump's base will stick with him almost no matter what. That base is probably somewhere between 30-35% of the population.
(As it happened, even an economic crisis didn't shake their loyalty.)
Other than that, I think my predictions have held up OK. They are not all spot-on, but generally in the right ballpark. In contrast, there were a lot of people on the forums claiming that Trump's election wouldn't change anything, that it would be "business as usual," and I think history has proven them not just wrong, but demonstrated how utterly foolish they were to begin with.
Since it became clear, a couple of days after the election, that Trump had lost, I have been thinking about what he will be remembered for, the big themes of his presidency. (Of course, much of that will depend on the aftermath, particularly on the extent to which Trumpism maintains potency in the years to come, among the right-wing base and within the institutional GOP.) Before yesterday, I had it down to three main things:
1. His disastrously inept and counterproductive handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to unnecessary death and suffering on a massive scale.
2. His activation of a (surprisingly large) populist base fervently loyal to him in and distrustful of and hostile to any other sources of authority or information.
3. His rampant abuse of office and disregard for democratic norms and constraints, as exemplified in the acts that led to his impeachment and his refusal to concede.
Ultimately, the bigger story is not what he himself has done—he is a malignant narcissist and is predictably acting out his disordered personality—but what republicans have not just allowed him to do, but have actively supported. They have probably paid some price (though shockingly low!) for it at the polls, and the Democrats winning the presidency, House and Senate (and perhaps some Republican lawmakers shocked into seriousness by this assault) gives some slight hope of reforms that may strengthen democracy in the next couple of years. However, in the long run I remain pessimistic about the ability of the US to pull itself out of its political dysfunction and maintain a democratic form of government.
Post by: Khris on 07 Jan 2021, 15:52
There are already claims that the storming was a false-flag op by Antifa all over right-wing Twitter and QAnon circles, and while this claim is so ridiculous on the face of it that even prominent fascists (Martin Sellner) tell their fan base not to spread it, it demonstrates nicely how rotten the brains of these people are.
There have been decades of "free real estate" in the US, culminating thanks to mostly Facebook but also other channels in a generation of middle aged people who have lost all grip on reality and will simply believe whatever if it makes their dreadful late-capitalism existence more bearable. Unfortunately, a sizeable lot of them is also active in the GOP, and they have just learned that about half the country will readily rally behind the next bullshitter, which we'll definitely see in 2024.
Trump may be gone, but the right-wing brain rot is here to stay.
Post by: WHAM on 07 Jan 2021, 18:28
Beyond that, I feel we can expect the last 4 years of unrest and violence to go on and potentially even escalate, especially now that both houses of parliament and the presidency are democrat again. That sort of one party government seems likely to fuel the distrust of the people even more than the two-out-of-three branches that the Republicans held under Trump. It's easy for me to say, living in a functional European democracy as I am, but the more I see of the American system the less it looks like a democracy to me. The two party system seems to create an untenable government which maximises friction and polarization, rather than promoting compromises. Right wing, left wing, both extremes are just as rotten and the healthy population that exists between them has nowhere to turn, as there is no third road to go down, and any attempt to create one in the form of third or fourth parties is derided as foolishness and "destabilising the system".
As all populist leaders do: Trump gave his voters what they wanted, or tried to. What the majority of people want in a polarized system like this, however, is rarely good for the whole of a nation. We've seen this time and time again in history, and America seems happy to repeat that history.
Post by: KyriakosCH on 07 Jan 2021, 18:47
:=
Post by: Khris on 07 Jan 2021, 23:21
Also, the idea that the Democratic Party in the US is left-wing, let alone extremist, is comically absurd.
Post by: WHAM on 08 Jan 2021, 07:17
Post by: Snarky on 08 Jan 2021, 07:31
Post by: WHAM on 08 Jan 2021, 07:37
I've seen a BLM oriented American friend of mine go from "We need to be more active and vote" to "I think it's okay to burn down the city hall and see some cops get killed if that gets people to listen to us" in less than a year.
Post by: KyriakosCH on 08 Jan 2021, 07:43
I also don't view BLM as in tautology with Antifa; BLM is something very tied to the US (for better or worse, black people's rights don't have the same history in other western countries, probably due to relative lack of numbers there).
That said, not all alt-right is Qanon, and I suppose the non-Qanon (ie without the theories including mass pedophilia and murder of babies, etc) alt-right is comparable to Antifa to a degree.
Post by: WHAM on 08 Jan 2021, 07:47
Post by: Khris on 08 Jan 2021, 08:03
Post by: WHAM on 08 Jan 2021, 08:12
Post by: Khris on 08 Jan 2021, 08:36
And also because you literally said being anti-fascist is self-serving extremism less than two hours ago, a sentiment commonly uttered by right-wing demagogues and proto-fascists the world over.
You might as well put a MAGA hat on your avatar, you're not fooling anyone.
(And your last sentence is exactly the famous trope of the guy who's definitely not a nazi becoming a nazi because of all the SJWs who keep calling him a nazi. You couldn't imply "closeted fascist" more if you tried)
Post by: KyriakosCH on 08 Jan 2021, 09:25
Post by: Snarky on 08 Jan 2021, 10:08
(It's awkward for me to play a double role of mod and participant in discussions like this. We should get a dedicated mod for this forum.)
Post by: WHAM on 08 Jan 2021, 10:30
(And your last sentence is exactly the famous trope of the guy who's definitely not a nazi becoming a nazi because of all the SJWs who keep calling him a nazi. You couldn't imply "closeted fascist" more if you tried)
I guess there's nothing to do, then. I am undone! I cannot resist!
Curse thee, oh soyboy leftie! I will wear my MAGA hat with pride and dignity as you cuck yourself on the altar of woke socialism! Choke on your precious bread, marxist!
(Good enough? Did we get the sarcasm layered on thick enough?)
Post by: Reiter on 08 Jan 2021, 11:11
That damned man is not worth it. This odious miasma he perpetually seem to generate is not worth it. Have some tea, let it be.
The Trumpet has finally shat in the blue cupboard so fiercely that it is inoperable, and by all accounts he is done. Done on the presidential throne, done in New York, done on the internet vomit machine. He will be out of office one day, and with these events, he may also finally go out of style.
We, meanwhile, will all be here tomorrow, when he is presumably packed off to Russia (if Ivan will take him in). We will have to get along when he is gone. It is not worth it, gentlemen.
EDIT: I am off to work, but surely we can all come along to laugh at the Trumpet later? I could bring a pie. Stay safe and stay calm!
Post by: WHAM on 08 Jan 2021, 12:16
Whether one thinks Trump was the cause or effect of this divide, what do you folks think might be required to heal the nation? What can be done to de-radicalize the extremes and help give the regular people who just want work, peace and stability a voice in a society where, currently, it seems the group that screams the loudest gets all the attention?
Post by: KyriakosCH on 08 Jan 2021, 13:54
Post by: WHAM on 08 Jan 2021, 14:13
I feel that's too extreme, even with the high level of polarization and constant expansion of radicalism. The actual underlying issues aren't such that I could imagine any states seceding from the union, let alone doing so in a group large enough to threaten the whole of the union. The average quality of life across the states is high enough that vast majority of people won't be willing to risk that.
Post by: KyriakosCH on 08 Jan 2021, 14:23
You mean a civil war, right?
I feel that's too extreme, even with the high level of polarization and constant expansion of radicalism. The actual underlying issues aren't such that I could imagine any states seceding from the union, let alone doing so in a group large enough to threaten the whole of the union. The average quality of life across the states is high enough that vast majority of people won't be willing to risk that.
I mean a world war, ala Britain having another reason to enter ww1 (mass revolts in Ireland) :)
I think the US has two very distinct, and incompatible by now, ideologies, and sooner or later this will mean two countries. Although massive events (such as a world war) obviously can change that.
I'd personally not want the US to split, by the way. In my view (for better or worse) the US can be seen as the leading euro nation, and Europe itself has far worse to look to than the US as its implicit leader. The European Union itself has failed, sadly. It might have been able to succeed, but since austerity/debt colonizing it is very clearly a failed project.
Post by: Danvzare on 08 Jan 2021, 16:50
I don't want to be caught in the crossfire, but... can't we all just get along? :) I mean this is just a web forum.Unfortunately, as long as someone misinterprets having a different opinion as an attack on their identity, it will always be impossible for us to get along. (wrong)
And unfortunately that fight or flight response is built into us as humans. So we're destined to never get along... unless coincidentally we all like the same thing. Speaking of which, does anyone here like adventure games? (laugh)
Post by: KyriakosCH on 08 Jan 2021, 16:58
Although some dream of becoming immortal gods (nod)
Post by: Babar on 08 Jan 2021, 17:13
Speaking of which, does anyone here like adventure games? (laugh)Go back where you came from, verbcoin lover!
Errr...good luck everyone related to this bonkers situation. Most of my non-western friends seem fairly ambivalent and jokey about the situation, at least that's what social media sharing tells me.
(https://i.imgur.com/1ClVJ4Q.png)
Post by: Blondbraid on 08 Jan 2021, 18:36
Yes, please tone it down, Khris, and focus on arguments not persons. We've been over that particular ground many times before, anyway.The polarization and name-calling in US politics are awful, but the worst part of it is how their bipartisan politics and the mentality of their "debates" keep bleeding over to discussions outside the US.
(It's awkward for me to play a double role of mod and participant in discussions like this. We should get a dedicated mod for this forum.)
As a Swede and a History buff, I can't say I would be surprised if the USA ceased to be a superpower in this century, with the numbers of wars they've fought and foreign interventions they've kinda been burning the candle in both ends and there's been hardly any focus on sustainability or longevity. Few empires have lasted more than a couple of centuries, and those that did focused strongly on building a strong infrastructure and cohesive governmental body, whereas, as some rando on the internet said, USA isn't even a full country, it's 50 tiny countries in a trenchcoat.
Post by: Ali on 08 Jan 2021, 22:40
Post by: Blondbraid on 08 Jan 2021, 23:28
It's as ridiculous to draw an equivalence between BLM protesters and MAGA nutbars as it is to imply that Trump's populism meant that he had the support of the majority of Americans. He never did.True, whenever people try to draw an equivalence between people killing others, and the people protesting the killings, I'm reminded of that classic Monty Pyhon quote:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/m0NwgpkR908MuxRQvduUDP3afmTCn9xxIuh2-eegrv_cJFwcW2tKqqQlRmnIkJiiORKtq025HiY9y3lbPXicC9UDiMVsrj5Nt-3Tmw_alW5iDv6biKBGeC4QmEDzVlEl-_bWmhemtXUzZTqUD_hXfJVoS8CoCvBkb8Q)
I know I've posted it in the forums before, but it keeps being relevant, doesn't it?
Post by: Reiter on 09 Jan 2021, 00:10
Now, as for the Trumpet, it seems this may have been the last straw, fortunately. A coup is distinctively unlikely - that is what you get when you spend your political career spitting on the shoes of your officer corps. Eleven days, and we are through the thick of it for now. Joy!
Life is also an adventure game, without a save option and one where regardless of what you do, you lose.
Although some dream of becoming immortal gods (nod)
Oh, indeed. A pointless hunt, as in a way, each of us are. Actors in the great play, the game of games. We have our verbs and our appointed rooms, our views and our global variables, all to He who points and clicks, and it is all magnificence. It could be worse. We could all be in a particularly cruel Sierra game.
(I ought to write this sermon out some day and see if the vicar wants it.)
I don't want to be caught in the crossfire, but... can't we all just get along? :) I mean this is just a web forum.Unfortunately, as long as someone misinterprets having a different opinion as an attack on their identity, it will always be impossible for us to get along. (wrong)
And unfortunately that fight or flight response is built into us as humans. So we're destined to never get along... unless coincidentally we all like the same thing. Speaking of which, does anyone here like adventure games? (laugh)
I disagree. There will always be something - something - that unites us over our differences, what-ever that may be. The question is finding it.
That is not to say that some differences are not impossible to reconcile or that it is a command to do so, since those differences and those limits are yours to decide - I doubt I could ever have drinks down the pub with an open Daeshite, and I shall not reconsider this - but all the same, it is important to try the thought, when the alternative is ever so much more simple and inviting. What bridges do you burn, and how many can you spare?
In this case, good old adventure games are far more important than the Trumpet's big mess of a political career. We can unify around that particular totem (presumably made to look like a mouse pointer), or at the very least around making fun of Mr Trump's ridiculous, guinea pig hair-cut.
Yes, please tone it down, Khris, and focus on arguments not persons. We've been over that particular ground many times before, anyway.The polarization and name-calling in US politics are awful, but the worst part of it is how their bipartisan politics and the mentality of their "debates" keep bleeding over to discussions outside the US.
(It's awkward for me to play a double role of mod and participant in discussions like this. We should get a dedicated mod for this forum.)
As a Swede and a History buff, I can't say I would be surprised if the USA ceased to be a superpower in this century, with the numbers of wars they've fought and foreign interventions they've kinda been burning the candle in both ends and there's been hardly any focus on sustainability or longevity. Few empires have lasted more than a couple of centuries, and those that did focused strongly on building a strong infrastructure and cohesive governmental body, whereas, as some rando on the internet said, USA isn't even a full country, it's 50 tiny countries in a trenchcoat.
Part of it is, I am sure, the political prudency of never wasting a good crisis. Part of it, I am starting to think, is that a lot of the more vocal people simply forget that they are not in America. It has such a vast presence, which they have absorbed for so long, that I do imagine that it is simply difficult for them to see where it ends these days. Goodness me, pulled pork became trendy again in a heart-beat once Biff Yankee started eating it, after all.
As for the future of Pax America, I do believe it is waning. Empires are troublesome. They are very rarely planned from the start, they are usually held together with hope and bits of string and if history have anything to teach aspiring empires, it is that the best you can hope for as an empire is finding yourself in a position where you can end your days peacefully. An empire 'succeeds' by dismantling itself in an orderly manner and with enough of what matters most to it intact to have something to live on, and preferably being able to meet the next new empire on tolerable terms.
What happens now is unclear, but there is a great shift coming. It will be ugly, but such are all inevitabilities. Project Europe looks rather bleak, for one. Indeed, as for the United States specifically, one wonders if it would be a happier union if it was a union of smaller unions instead. One hears a lot of 'right-sizing' and what-not, after all.
If we get another round of Trumpeting in '24, on the other hand, I will be very vexed.
Post by: mkennedy on 09 Jan 2021, 00:19
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 00:26
It looks like Trump's Twitter account has now been permanently suspended.
I'm glad the committee for shutting stable doors finally decided to take action.
Post by: KyriakosCH on 09 Jan 2021, 08:07
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 10:36
True, whenever people try to draw an equivalence between people killing others, and the people protesting the killings..
You mean the BLM shooter who killed 5 police officers?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.html
Or are we talking of all the people dead and injured in the other BLM and George Floyd protests so far?
Again, just because one side is worse (no matter if it's my evaluation or yours, and if those evaluations come to a different value judgement of these violent extremist movements) than the other, should not mean we need to start arguing about which group is worse than another group. We should be agreeing that violent political extremist groups are a foul thing and need to be acted upon.
With Trumps Twitter shut down, it will also be interesting to see where that leads. I'm guessing big tech companies are going to have to go on a rampage shutting down the smaller social media platforms to make sure the people cut off from the major platforms cannot find a refuge anywhere. For if the fail that, we'll just see a further division of the internet into smaller and smaller communities with more and more extremism. Hell, back when I joined the AGS forums I told people this was the nicest, friendliest community I'd ever seen online, but nowadays some of the loudest voices seem to be perfectly happy to spout hate, abuse and toxicity at other users for the crime of not agreeing with them. Never would have believed it, back in the day...
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 10:50
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 10:57
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 11:28
Post by: Matti on 09 Jan 2021, 12:15
**** off!
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 12:38
SS-runes on your avatar now, WHAM, eh?
**** off!
Hey, if I get called a nazi and fascist by people who don't know the difference, then I might as well look the part, right?
Alas, I'll swap the avatar if it hurts your frail little soul so much to see 16 evil pixels on your screen.
EDIT: There, all better now.
EDIT EDIT: Oooh? I'm watched now, but not the people who keep accusing me of being something I'm not, namecalling and showing various forms of hatred and outright bigotry. That... seems about right for what's going on nowadays. Carry on.
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 12:47
Post by: Blondbraid on 09 Jan 2021, 12:51
Hey, if I get called a nazi and fascist by people who don't know the difference, then I might as well look the part, right?A comedian once said; "It doesn't matter if you f*ck goats ironically, you're still a goatf*ucker".
A big reason fascism and neo-nazism got so big in the first place is because of vile nazis posting nazi memes as a joke,
and people who don't know any better reposting such memes and symbols ironically/for shock value, making fascists seem more
numerous and popular than they are and just emboldening them further.
Plus don't you think an avatar with SS runes would be pretty horrifying to forum users who haven't followed the context of this discussion?
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 13:00
Plus don't you think an avatar with SS runes would be pretty horrifying to forum users who haven't followed the context of this discussion?
To be "horrified" of an old symbol of a dead ideology is, to me, a sign of weakness of the mind and spirit. It's a fear of ghosts.
It's not the symbol we should fear or feel outrage over, but the actual ideas and actions, the actual extremism that actually harms people all over the world. A picture on the internet has not hurt anyone, a brick, a fist, a fire, or a boot or a gun has, and the people who take to the streets with those are the ones we need to worry about, whatever symbols they choose to wear that particular day.
Just like all the pearl-clutching about the swastika, which still remains in use in a number of countries, such as Finland over here, acting horrified over a rune or a symbol with a multitude of meanings just because ONE of those meanings was vile long ago is a foolish thing to do and merely gives far more power to the very people we'd all (hopefully) like to oppose.
Post by: Reiter on 09 Jan 2021, 13:03
Do not make me come down there. I have a stick!
There are discussions to be had here, but this is not the mode. This is a terribly bad atmosphere. Particularly now that the subject of this thread is on the slide, hopefully for good. It is not a good time to do something silly. Let it be, we have a world with less covfefe in it to prepare for.
What IS covfefe, anyway? The cup of coffee the pub gives you when it is about time you go home? A type of chocolate bonbons? Have we reached a conclusion on this? I must know.
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 14:04
To be "horrified" of an old symbol of a dead ideology is, to me, a sign of weakness of the mind and spirit. It's a fear of ghosts.
It's an insult to the victims of Nazi genocide to suggest that people who are horrified by the SS logo are weak in mind and spirit. Unlike the swastika, it has no meaning beyond Nazism. "Weak and mind and spirit" is authoritarian bullshit - I see no reason that weakness should be despised.
Anyone who draws a parallel between BLM protesters and the far-right extremists who just stormed the Capitol is either a fascist sympathiser or an idiot. Out of respect for Snarky's request, I'm being as civil as I can towards WHAM: I don't think he's an idiot.
Post by: Mandle on 09 Jan 2021, 14:20
(https://i.imgur.com/Im72H5t.png)
Post by: Blondbraid on 09 Jan 2021, 14:22
My thoughts exactly, the reason nazis started using such symbols in the first place was so they could organize and rally together to commit real physical violence.To be "horrified" of an old symbol of a dead ideology is, to me, a sign of weakness of the mind and spirit. It's a fear of ghosts.
It's an insult to the victims of Nazi genocide to suggest that people who are horrified by the SS logo are weak in mind and spirit. Unlike the swastika, it has no meaning beyond Nazism. "Weak and mind and spirit" is authoritarian bullshit - I see no reason that weakness should be despised.
Anyone who draws a parallel between BLM protesters and the far-right extremists who just stormed the Capitol is either a fascist sympathiser or an idiot. Out of respect for Snarky's request, I'm being as civil as I can towards WHAM: I don't think he's an idiot.
And even if I were to play along with the notion that the swastika is used in other contexts than nazism, WHAM stated outright that he only changed his avatar to look like a nazi:
Hey, if I get called a nazi and fascist by people who don't know the difference, then I might as well look the part, right?
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 14:32
And even if I were to play along with the notion that the swastika is used in other contexts than nazism, WHAM stated outright that he only changed his avatar to look like a nazi
That was kind of the point. Whether I look like, or don't look like a "nazi" in a forum avatar does not change what I truly am. The symbology can just as well be a joke or a jest, if used that way.
The symbol has no power unless you give it power, and every time someone clutches their pearls and faints at the sight of a "nazi symbol" they are simply empowering actual nazis to think they still hold some real power in society. The exact kind of validation that all the other crazies online, the Qanons and whatnots, feed off of.
It remains both sad and funny at the same time to see how the left-leaning people all over the world have so utterly failed to learn what kind of harm it does to label people they don't like as something they are not. Fascist, nazi, deplorable, alt-right, whatever it happens to be. Such false labels only serve to drive people away from your cause, and into something you absolutely don't want to drive them to. It was precisely this my joke of an evil-to-the-point-of-having-glowing-red-eyes nazi avatar was trying to exemplify. Unlike the nutcases on Capitol Hill, I'm content to poke holes in weak ideologies and to change a forum avatar, though.
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 14:35
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 14:42
Post by: Blondbraid on 09 Jan 2021, 14:47
Sorry if this comes across as too emotional, but my own grandmother lived in Czechoslovakia during the German occupation and saw people she knew disappear forever into concentration camps, and I've been in the same room as people who've survived the holocaust and had nightmares from the stories they've told me. This isn't ancient history and dressing or posing as a nazi isn't funny for people who've seen the horrors.
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 14:55
I can sympathise with your family history, even though my family was very much on the other side of the experience, and if we were having this conversation in a setting where actual holocaust survivors were present then even I would wholly agree that jokes on the topic would be in utterly poor taste. However, an internet forum is not such a place, and while everyone might have a different opinion and personal experience, silencing opinions, ideas, topics and worldviews, as well as making certain words and symbols simply verboten due to some aspect of their history, is a wholly unreasonable expectation of an entire community.
Well, unless that community chooses to expel all who hold different opinions and worldviews and sets up gatekeeping policites, as some sites already do.
(https://i1.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/captain-america-red-skull-comic.png)
Post by: Haggis on 09 Jan 2021, 15:05
Also, using the symbol as an avatar is different to using it say in an Indiana Jones or Wolfenstein game - an avatar is a representation of you/your identity.
"It remains both sad and funny at the same time to see how the left-leaning people all over the world have so utterly failed to learn what kind of harm it does to label people" - I don't think you can pin this solely on the left. I think both sides are guilty of labelling - it's a childish conflict response - but certainly something the outgoing president has not held back on indulging in himself.
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 15:11
"It remains both sad and funny at the same time to see how the left-leaning people all over the world have so utterly failed to learn what kind of harm it does to label people" - I don't think you can pin this solely on the left. I think both sides are guilty of labelling - it's a childish conflict response - but certainly something the outgoing president has not held back on indulging in himself.
For my part, I've no qualms pointing the finger as much on the right as I do on the left. I've been repeatedly calling out the extremes on both sides, and both sides are, at least in the US, definitely guilty of using the same tactics. The issue of labelling people as you please and then using those labels as justification for further abuse, of special interest to me as a thing I've had the unpleasant experience of being the target of myself, has become increasingly prevalent in US politics over the past decade and seem to be steadily seeping out of the US and into the politics and especially the media of slightly more civilized parts of the world as well.
Oddly enough, even on this very forum we seem to find plenty of people willing to look the other way when one side, or rather they themselves, are abusing these tactics, and are more than eager to call it out when someone else does it.
Post by: Snarky on 09 Jan 2021, 15:12
However, an internet forum is not such a place, and while everyone might have a different opinion and personal experience, silencing opinions, ideas, topics and worldviews, as well as making certain words and symbols simply verboten due to some aspect of their history, is a wholly unreasonable expectation of an entire community.
Nevertheless, we do ban certain words and symbols on these forums (though with regard for context, e.g. "use" vs. "mention").
And the comic you posted is, as it turns out, from an alt-right artist, with other strips that are transphobic, racist, and express Holocaust denial (and with its official forum a Neo-Nazi fan community that was banned from Reddit). Which again, is not permitted here.
Post by: Honza on 09 Jan 2021, 15:15
They are, however, extremists in sharing the same set of tools and ideals. Both believe they are on a righteous path (some more accurately than others).
WHAM, could you briefly clarify which ones you believe to be more accurate? Why and by what margin? At least for me it would help clear up that Nazi sympathizer accusation, one way or the other.
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 15:30
And the comic you posted is, as it turns out, from an alt-right artist, with other strips that are transphobic, racist, and express Holocaust denial (and with its official forum a Neo-Nazi fan community that was banned from Reddit). Which again, is not permitted here.
The creator of the comic, or parts of their fanbase, can hold whatever views they want. I see no reason for that to detract from the art itself, or the all-too-real message it portrays.
WHAM, could you briefly clarify which ones you believe to be more accurate? Why and by what margin? At least for me it would help clear up that Nazi sympathizer accusation, one way or the other.
People actually fighting for freedom and equality, such as the more stable parts of the BLM movement, are in my opinion on the more righteous path than someone like Antifa or Qanon.
My short view on the BLM movement is that it has a very good underlying cause and idea (equal opportunity regardless of race, and the end of racial discrimination in the legal system among others), but is marred by its more extreme components and fringe ideas that seem to serve only to discredit the more sensible parts of the movement.
As for Qanon, I don't know that much about their movement, but they seem to just be a particularly active movement built around conspiracy theories and capable of mobilizing their members in real world locations. So far, to my knowledge, their movement doesn't really have any merit whatsoever.
Antifa on the other hand is a reactionary group of self-righteous thugs looking to dehumanize their opponents to justify various forms of violence and destruction under the guise of blind faith in a "good cause" and "saving the world from the nazis".
Post by: Honza on 09 Jan 2021, 15:38
People actually fighting for freedom and equality, such as the more stable parts of the BLM movement, are in my opinion on the more righteous path than someone like Antifa or Qanon. My short view on the BLM movement is that it has a very good underlying cause and idea (equal opportunity regardless of race, and the end of racial discrimination in the legal system among others).
Alright! Now can we please all agree that nobody who sincerely believes the above is anywhere near a Nazi sympathizer?
Post by: Blondbraid on 09 Jan 2021, 15:45
But what of art that clearly reflects the political views of the artist, such as the one you posted?And the comic you posted is, as it turns out, from an alt-right artist, with other strips that are transphobic, racist, and express Holocaust denial (and with its official forum a Neo-Nazi fan community that was banned from Reddit). Which again, is not permitted here.
The creator of the comic, or parts of their fanbase, can hold whatever views they want. I see no reason for that to detract from the art itself, or the all-too-real message it portrays.
Also, I may have brought up a personal example from my family history, but far more people than just my family lived through WW2, and you have no way of knowing whether any of the people reading this forum had relatives who survived the holocaust,
and that alone is a strong reason not to use nazi imagery lightly in my book, not to mention any potential neo-nazis seeing it, not knowing you're doing it ironically, and decide nazis should be welcome here.
I've given up on so many other forums because nazism, sexism, racism, and homophobia run rampant without consequences, and it's exactly the modding and rules of the AGS forums that let me express myself without fear of harassment from a dozen anonymous trolls.
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 15:50
People actually fighting for freedom and equality, such as the more stable parts of the BLM movement, are in my opinion on the more righteous path than someone like Antifa or Qanon. My short view on the BLM movement is that it has a very good underlying cause and idea (equal opportunity regardless of race, and the end of racial discrimination in the legal system among others).
Alright! Now can we please all agree that nobody who sincerely believes the above is anywhere near a Nazi sympathizer?
No. I don't agree when the person in question has expressly said that the Nazis were no worse than the opposition in WW2, that criminals are sub-human and that only weak-minded people are horrified by Nazi symbolism. When the person in question JUST shared a political comic strip from a cartoonist who endorses holocaust denial. No, obviously not.
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 16:05
No. I don't agree when the person in question has expressly said that the Nazis were no worse than the opposition in WW2, that criminals are sub-human and that only weak-minded people are horrified by Nazi symbolism. When the person in question JUST shared a political comic strip from a cartoonist who endorses holocaust denial. No, obviously not.
Funny how my worldviews still hold the same basic principles: just because one side is worse than the other does not mean the other one is not also bad and need to be dealt with accordingly. Oh, and yes, I still also hold the view that the most vile of criminals do deserve to lose their human rights. Difference between people like you and people like me is that I expect there to be inviolable evidence of wrongdoing before a punishment should be laid out, rather than just deciding that someone should be labelled as evil and thus all they say is also automatically evil. The comic does a very good job at illustrating how abusing labels is a way for the most vile people to get their way, in the exact same fashion as certain individuals here are doing things. Isn't it interesting to notice how only one side seems to have to rely on slapping labels on their opponents to justify their abuse, while the other side only has to make reasoned arguments?
Any other topics you'd like to discuss again?
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 16:29
Difference between people like you and people like me is that I expect there to be inviolable evidence of wrongdoing before a punishment should be laid out, rather than just deciding that someone should be labelled as evil and thus all they say is also automatically evil.
I'm also a critic of the British Empire, US Imperialism and the Soviet Union. I don't think having opposed Nazism makes you a saint. But there's a difference between a morally nuanced reading history and what you said (many years ago) - which is that if the Nazis had won, the Axis forces would be just as demonised now. Nazism represents a distinct and unique evil. There have been many other atrocities in human history, but *weighing* the horrors of the holocaust against others achieves nothing apart from far-right PR.
That cartoonist is not automatically wrong about everything, just because he's a holocaust denier and a so-called 'race realist'. I'm sure he can tell his arse from his elbow. But he is extremely likely to be wrong about everything pertaining to Nazism - because he shares Nazi beliefs.
I don't think I've called for anyone to be punished without evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps the nub of our disagreement is that I think endorsing Nazi ideas is wrongdoing?
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 16:37
Perhaps the nub of our disagreement is that I think endorsing Nazi ideas is wrongdoing?
I see no major disagreement here. Many, even most, ideas held by the Nazis are deeply wrong. They were so at the time, and they remain so today. The ideas that weren't quite so bad could even be argued to not be nazi ideas, but rather older, more deep-rooted ideals of Germany and other historical nations the Nazis adopted.
Most of the things I've said you seem upset about are well over a decade old now, from a time before I turned 18, and when I wrote in far edgier style, using cruder language to represent my ideas. While much of those ideas still hold, such as the belief (now even stronger, the more history books I've read) that the victors write the history they want and will colour it to their liking, they are far more evolved and nuanced nowadays with plenty more reading done and life lived.
I've said this before and will say it again, I'll be happy to discuss views and matters with people at any time. I have Discord for that, as well as many other avenues of communication. Sadly it seems that no matter what opinions I state out in the open on a topic at hand, the end result seems to repeatedly just be me having to defend my character rather than the content of what I have said in the past decade.
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 16:42
But if I had ever diminished the significance of the holocaust, I would apologise for it. If I had just changed my avatar to an SS uniform as a 'joke' I would apologise for it. If I had earlier today defended myself against criticism by sharing a comic strip from a far-right cartoonist - I would be excruciatingly embarrassed and sincerely ashamed.
You can't expect acceptance and forgiveness when all you've done is express the same views in politer and more nuanced terms.
Post by: Honza on 09 Jan 2021, 16:49
No. I don't agree when the person in question has expressly said that the Nazis were no worse than the opposition in WW2, that criminals are sub-human and that only weak-minded people are horrified by Nazi symbolism. When the person in question JUST shared a political comic strip from a cartoonist who endorses holocaust denial. No, obviously not.
But then you must think that WHAM is being dishonest in the statement I quoted. Is that what you're implying? Because I don't see how anyone who sincerely supports "equal opportunity regardless of race, and the end of racial discrimination in the legal system" can also be a Nazi sympathizer. The two seem mutually exclusive to me.
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 16:54
You can't expect acceptance and forgiveness when all you've done is express the same views in politer and more nuanced terms.
I expect no acceptance, since we disagree on certain topics and hold vastly differing worldviews and historical backgrounds, and thus clearly cannot accept one another's views.
I expect no forgiveness, for I don't believe I have done anything wrong where I would need to be forgiven.
I expect civility and basic human decency, things I am fully willing and able to grant even to people with whom I vehemently disagree and disapprove of.
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 16:59
But then you must think that WHAM is being dishonest in the statement I quoted. Is that what you're implying? Because I don't see how anyone who sincerely supports "equal opportunity regardless of race, and the end of racial discrimination in the legal system" can also be a Nazi sympathizer. The two seem mutually exclusive to me.
I'm sure WHAM believes in equality and fairness - everyone will tell you they do. For some people "ending racial discrimination" means not fighting the economic inequalities that exist between white and black people.
I don't think WHAM is a card-carrying Nazi, if that's what you mean. He has simply diminished and made excuses for Nazis, while also advancing authoritarian views and misrepresenting left-wing groups. Technically, there's a difference between Nazis and Nazi apologists - but I don't want to spend time around either of them. I'm also not keen on treating WHAM civilly. Because he'll insist that his youthful dalliance with Nazi apologia is a thing of the past, and a moment later say "I don't believe I have done anything wrong."
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 17:01
I'm also not keen on treating WHAM civilly.
It's all right, Ali. We can keep up the status quo, where one side act like children angrily calling people names, while the other side keep a cool head and act like adults.
Keep calm and carry on.
Post by: Haggis on 09 Jan 2021, 17:08
"I expect no forgiveness, for I don't believe I have done anything wrong where I would need to be forgiven."
"I expect civility and basic human decency, things I am fully willing and able to grant even to people with whom I vehemently disagree and disapprove of."
You expect others to treat you civilly and with human decency, yet, when you use an image or argument that may be deeply offensive to others for various reasons and they have expressed that, even if your aim was not to offend, you are indicating you don't have the decency to at the very least apologise to them for doing so. I'm not saying you have to apologise - i'm just saying you expect others to treat you in a way you maybe don't treat them.
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 17:11
It's all right, Ali. We can keep up the status quo, where one side act like children angrily calling people names, while the other side keep a cool head and act like adults.
Keep calm and carry on.
I remain unimpressed by the fact that you can adopt a lofty, disinterested tone. Being calm and polite isn't the same thing as being rational.
We ought to have an emotional reaction towards racism, inequality, mass murder. It's not irrational to feel passionately about politics. If you can look at the holocaust and keep a "cool head" - I deeply mistrust you.
Post by: Honza on 09 Jan 2021, 17:25
I'm sure WHAM believes in equality and fairness - everyone will tell you they do. For some people "ending racial discrimination" means not fighting the economic inequalities that exist between white and black people.
Well, "the end of racial discrimination in the legal system" acknowledges there currently is racial discrimination, which is more than many right-wingers or libertarians would grant you. And those, however I personally disagree with them, still have very little to do with actual Nazis. The fact that some Nazis pose as moderates and hijack their ideas to gain legitimacy is a different issue - it would be relevant only if you don't take what WHAM is saying at face value.
But I see I'm probably missing some context here, you guys are talking about posts dating many years back, I obviously can't speak to that.
Post by: Blondbraid on 09 Jan 2021, 17:27
My thoughts exactly, it's easy to stay calm when you've no horse in the race, but if you're a minority or a woman, any group that's faced a long history of very real oppression because of something you were born into,It's all right, Ali. We can keep up the status quo, where one side act like children angrily calling people names, while the other side keep a cool head and act like adults.
Keep calm and carry on.
I remain unimpressed by the fact that you can adopt a lofty, disinterested tone. Being calm and polite isn't the same thing as being rational.
We ought to have an emotional reaction towards racism, inequality, mass murder. It's not irrational to feel passionately about politics. If you can look at the holocaust and keep a "cool head" - I deeply mistrust you.
it's immensely hard to stay polite towards people defending an ideology that treats you as a subhuman.
Also, rational and passionate need not be exclusive, just watch this speech:
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 17:29
The thing we have to understand is that we are talking of history here, not current day events, and the US presidential elections aren't exactly world-ending matters outside of certain political and media circles in the US.
As someone else already pointed out in this very thread, the impact of the US on a global scale is diminishing and the rest of the world needs to think for themselves, rather than cling to cold war era ideas of the US always being there to rescue us from the next crisis.
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 17:45
Well, "the end of racial discrimination in the legal system" acknowledges there currently is racial discrimination, which is more than many right-wingers or libertarians would grant you. And those, however I personally disagree with them, still have very little to do with actual Nazis. The fact that some Nazis pose as moderates and hijack their ideas to gain legitimacy is a different issue - it would be relevant only if you don't take what WHAM is saying at face value.
If I can give you an example of what I mean - the South African government provides financial support for black-owned businesses. Clearly, in a literal sense, this is racially discriminatory. On the other hand, white people (a small minority) still hold the vast majority of South Africa's land and wealth. So, depending on your interpretation, ending this 'discriminatory' law would reinforce the existing racial inequality.
I'm not saying this is WHAM's view, of course. I'm just explaining why most of the right-wingers and libertarians I can think of claim to be in favour of fairness and equality, and against racial discrimination.
Post by: KyriakosCH on 09 Jan 2021, 18:53
I wonder which forum would be. Maybe something even more hipsterish, like a discussion board for DIY exotic beehives or something :=
Post by: Honza on 09 Jan 2021, 20:36
If I can give you an example of what I mean - the South African government provides financial support for black-owned businesses. Clearly, in a literal sense, this is racially discriminatory. On the other hand, white people (a small minority) still hold the vast majority of South Africa's land and wealth. So, depending on your interpretation, ending this 'discriminatory' law would reinforce the existing racial inequality.
I'm not saying this is WHAM's view, of course. I'm just explaining why most of the right-wingers and libertarians I can think of claim to be in favour of fairness and equality, and against racial discrimination.
Sure, I know what you mean! I suppose I'll leave it up to WHAM if he wants to clarify. So far I still think some of the opinions he's expressed (annoying rational-adults-vs-snowflake-children posing aside) are totally inconsistent with being a Nazi apologist. Just your regular edgy right-winger/moderate. But maybe I'm being naive.
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 21:10
Sure, I know what you mean! I suppose I'll leave it up to WHAM if he wants to clarify.
I am a proponent for equal opportunity in western societies, but not for the enforcement of equal outcome.
South Africa is a state I am not well familiar with, so I can't really say much on it. All I know the history there is a bloody mess in every sense of the word.
Post by: Honza on 09 Jan 2021, 21:24
I am a proponent for equal opportunity in western societies, but not for the enforcement of equal outcome.
So when you wrote about agreeing with BLM on "the end of racial discrimination", what exactly did you have in mind? What racial discrimination is there that should be ended?
Post by: WHAM on 09 Jan 2021, 21:31
This is a rather uneducated read on the situation, however. I know several Americans and have discussed the topics with them, learning from them, along with reading history and news, but I am by no means an expert on American politics or racial history. The above is just a short version of how I see American racial politics as they are playing out today.
Post by: Ali on 09 Jan 2021, 22:36
The president is clearly a very stupid man, but he's a stupid man with a very expensive education. His appeal to racists is obvious. But while ~69% of his support in 2016 came from people without a college education, ~70% of the US population doesn't have a college degree. He was no more or less popular among "uneducated" people. Incidentally. "Equality of outcomes" is a goal you will almost never hear a left-wing person discussing, it's a conservative/alt-right fantasy that Marxist academics are determined to achieve equality by disadvantaging truly talented, high-IQ people (who, by sheer coincidence, tend to be wealthy white men) in favour of less able candidates (who by sheer coincidence, tend not to be).
What "Equality of Opportunity not Equality of Outcome" means is "Against racism. Against doing literally anything to tackle racism." This is, unfortunately, fairly a standard right-wing belief. Not something that makes you a Nazi apologist. See: I can tell the difference.
Post by: Blondbraid on 09 Jan 2021, 23:08
What "Equality of Opportunity not Equality of Outcome" means is "Against racism. Against doing literally anything to tackle racism." This is, unfortunately, fairly a standard right-wing belief. Not something that makes you a Nazi apologist. See: I can tell the difference.True, plenty run of the mill libertarians and people with the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality say the same thing, but just because it's not nazism doesn't mean it's not stupid. You can't pretend centuries of oppression hasn't had any long-term consequences
and it'll just go away just because the most egregious laws upholding the oppression have been abolished, it's like expecting a cancer patient who's been wasting away for years to get up and play football straight after ten minutes of chemotherapy.
WHAM, if you can take all this time arguing in this thread, you really should take the time to watch the speech by Kimberly Jones I posted a couple of posts back, it's like 5 minutes long but she really explains it all.
Post by: Honza on 10 Jan 2021, 00:25
But while ~69% of his support in 2016 came from people without a college education, ~70% of the US population doesn't have a college degree. He was no more or less popular among "uneducated" people.
This seems to say otherwise?
(https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/08/2-12.png)
(somewhat relieved if that's true, it would be worrying if education had no effect on supporting Trump)
Also to stop just being a WHAM apologist :) and add my two cents, I agree (at least from what I know, which is not that much to be honest ;)) that black people are currently disadvantaged as a consequence of extreme discrimination in the past and perhaps some prevailing discrimination in the present. So it's the "equality of opportunity" part that's being disputed, many people see a different starting point as unequal opportunity. Nobody I know of wants equality of outcome, that's a fringe, far-left idea.
Where I might disagree with many lefties are specific policies aiming to fix that. I think racial bias (i.e. "people treat you differently because of your skin color") should only be fought with anti-racist education and cannot be compensated financially or by preferential treatment. Social/financial disadvantages can be remedied with appropriate investments, but programs aiming to do that shouldn't be centered around skin color. If someone believes that black descendants of slaves deserve more support than equally poor and socially disadvantaged white descendants of, say, criminals and alcoholics (because the ancestors of the former were oppressed and abused while the ancestors of the latter were the abusers and any misfortune they got is their own fault), that's where our moral intuitions would diverge.
Post by: Crimson Wizard on 10 Jan 2021, 01:29
Post by: Ali on 10 Jan 2021, 02:20
This seems to say otherwise?
Yes, of course, Clinton was more popular than Trump among people with a college education so perhaps it's confusing/wrong for me to say he was "neither popular nor unpopular". The source I read came from a different poll (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/), but your numbers still show about 29% of his support coming from college-educated voters. Since that's close to the proportion of college-educated voters in the population (and among registered Republicans) I don't think it's right to say he was more popular among non-college educated voters, since they were about as likely to vote for him as college-educated people.
Again, I'd dispute equality of outcome being a far-left idea. It's a conservative caricature of what a far-left idea is. It would be like me saying conservatism means "we love guns and hate poor people."
I think trying to address racial inequality without acknowledging class is a mistake - "More Black billionaires" won't give us equality of opportunity. But similarly, I think it would be impossible to address social inequality without acknowledging that class inequalities often divide along racial lines. Of course we should try to educate ourselves about racism - but we've known that being poor is awful and unfair for centuries, and we haven't eradicated poverty. We can't expect racism to evaporate once everyone has heard it's bad.
Post by: Honza on 10 Jan 2021, 06:46
I don't think it's right to say he was more popular among non-college educated voters, since they were about as likely to vote for him as college-educated people.
If I'm interpreting the numbers correctly, there was about 36% chance you'd vote for Trump if you were college educated and about 50% chance if you weren't (the difference being even bigger if you were white). What am I getting wrong here? The article you're linking seems to argue that the education difference doesn't indicate a wealth/class difference, it doesn't deny that there was an education difference (just skimmed it, might be missing something).
Again, I'd dispute equality of outcome being a far-left idea. It's a conservative caricature of what a far-left idea is. It would be like me saying conservatism means "we love guns and hate poor people."
Well, it would be more like you saying conservatism means "every man for himself, social support is against the natural order", which is a somewhat more fitting caricature :). But ok, I suppose "equality of outcome" might be a misrepresentation even when it comes to fringe ideas. I saw it as a theoretical extreme of the spectrum. I agree it's often used to strawman people on the left.
EDIT: I'll leave the rest unanswered, I can agree with you in broad terms, but we would probably disagree on what "acknowledging that class inequalities often divide along racial lines" entails in practice. But this rabbit hole is already deep enough, let's bring it back to the original topic :).
Post by: WHAM on 10 Jan 2021, 10:51
Post by: Ali on 10 Jan 2021, 11:17
If I'm interpreting the numbers correctly, there was about 36% chance you'd vote for Trump if you were college educated and about 50% chance if you weren't (the difference being even bigger if you were white). What am I getting wrong here?
I'm hardly a statistician, so apologies if I'm wrong or repeating myself here. But those figures suggest that college-educated people disproportionately voted for Clinton. And college-educated people are probably more likely to vote in general.
But the ratio of college-educated to non-college educated Trump voters in 2016 roughly matched the general population. So if 7/10 Americans don't have a college degree and 7/10 Trump voters don't have a degree that doesn't seem to show him being disproportionately popular among less educated people. A randomly selected college-educated American (though more likely to vote for Clinton) would be about as likely to vote for Trump as a randomly selected non-college educated American.
Perhaps the relevant passage from the WaPo will clear this up:
although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census). Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.
Post by: Honza on 10 Jan 2021, 12:31
although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census). Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.
Ok, so let's see if I get this. I'm not a statistician either, but the numbers you are quoting might to correspond to the 50% I'm mentioning? If you are uneducated, you are as likely to vote for Trump as you are for Hillary. But once you become educated, you also become far less likely to vote for Trump, only 36%. Does that make sense?
("once you become educated, you also become far less likely" is technically an unwarranted assumption by the way, correlation doesn't equal causation yada yada, I'm simplifying for dramatic effect ;)).
EDIT: Ok, on second thought it probably doesn't make sense :). Tempted to delete this post, but I'll leave it in case somebody's already reacting. But then I don't know how to reconcile my numbers with yours - what's the relationship between the "57% educated voting for Hillary/36% educated voting for Trump" ratio and the proportion of uneducated Trump voters matching the proportion in the general population? How can both be true?
Post by: Ali on 10 Jan 2021, 13:13
In the Pew figures, College grads represent 37% of the electorate. 36% of College grads voted Trump, so that's around 13% of the electorate (36% of 37%).
Trump's total vote represented 45% of the electorate, and around 13% of those voters were graduates - around 29%. So there's a roughly 70-30 split among Trump voters, which is not far from the national average / Republican average.
So, I'm comparing how likely college-educated and non-college educated people were to vote for Trump. I'm not comparing how popular Trump was in comparison with Clinton in those groups.
Post by: Snarky on 10 Jan 2021, 13:14
Post by: Honza on 10 Jan 2021, 14:03
I'm still confused by the implications though, so let me go real slow:
- You pick a random college grad. They are more likely to vote for Clinton than for Trump.
- You pick a random non-college grad. They are slightly more likely to vote for Trump than for Clinton.
- Now the part that confuses me: both are equally likely to vote for Trump? So would this mean that as long as you are deciding whether to vote for Trump, education doesn't matter, but once you decide not to vote for him, education influences whether you vote for Hillary instead or don't vote at all?
Also does the 37/63 in the Pew poll compared to your 30/70 change anything about this?
Post by: Ali on 10 Jan 2021, 14:39
Post by: KyriakosCH on 10 Jan 2021, 17:20
(https://ourworldindata.org/exports/share-of-population-age-15-with-completed-tertiary-education_v2_850x600.svg)
Post by: WHAM on 10 Jan 2021, 17:24
Going by some map I saw a few days ago, the US actually is among the leading countries in percentage of the population with one university degree (or more).
And India produces the highest number of software engineers per year.
The number of graduates alone doesn't tell the whole story, and this is especially the case in the US which is, as said, 50 countries wearing a trench coat. One has to consider things like which states have those degrees, how are they distributed, what kinds of degrees they are and what kind of merit and credentials do the schools granting them have. A high number of graduates means nothing if the quality of education is down in the dumps.
Post by: Blondbraid on 10 Jan 2021, 17:57
which just goes to show how antiquated and out of touch most of their political system is. Land doesn't vote, people do.
Post by: WHAM on 10 Jan 2021, 21:59
Speaking of US colleges, there's that whole system with the electoral college. From what I've read, Hillary actually got 3 million more votes from the total population, but Trump won the vote in more different US states,
which just goes to show how antiquated and out of touch most of their political system is. Land doesn't vote, people do.
Except if you look at the history and purpose of the electoral college, you'll find that it's doing pretty much exactly what it was designed to do, and a major reason for it being there is, again, the fact that the US is basically 50 countries. The size and scope, along with the varied interests between different states, pretty much necessitates a system like the electoral college to at least try and keep a few densely populated states controlling all of the more sparsely controlled ones.
Post by: Blondbraid on 10 Jan 2021, 22:46
It's an argument I've heard before and not a particularly good one to boot. How's it fairer that, instead of risking populated states having more say than the sparser ones, somebody in Wyoming gets to have a vote that's worth more than that of someone in California?Speaking of US colleges, there's that whole system with the electoral college. From what I've read, Hillary actually got 3 million more votes from the total population, but Trump won the vote in more different US states,
which just goes to show how antiquated and out of touch most of their political system is. Land doesn't vote, people do.
Except if you look at the history and purpose of the electoral college, you'll find that it's doing pretty much exactly what it was designed to do, and a major reason for it being there is, again, the fact that the US is basically 50 countries. The size and scope, along with the varied interests between different states, pretty much necessitates a system like the electoral college to at least try and keep a few densely populated states controlling all of the more sparsely controlled ones.
And that's not even mentioning its ties to slavery... (https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/)
Post by: Snarky on 10 Jan 2021, 23:18
Quote
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. […]
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.
The purpose of this was to ensure that unfit and populist candidates would not be selected:
Quote
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place. […]
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
By picking the electors by popular vote, on slates that are strongly committed to a given candidate, the whole notion of the deliberative, independent body is lost. As for vetting and rejecting unfit candidates, the system has—in part for that reason—plainly failed.
Of course, one major flaw of the US Constitution is that it originally failed to account for political parties, simply hoping that they would not form rather than designing a system that would either be compatible with them or would discourage them (and therefore, the Electoral College could never work as idealized, as the 1800 election demonstrated); and second that it has been patched haphazardly over the centuries with various amendments, laws and constitutional interpretations without any overarching design vision, so that it's difficult to really ascribe any "intention" behind the system as it now exists.
As for the idea that "the US is basically 50 countries," that was the original idea: a union of states. But since the Civil War at the latest, it is plainly one country—albeit one with considerable federalism. However, the same is true of e.g. the UK (where I believe Scotland has a whole separate school system), and Germany. And while states still handle some important policy areas (while others are handled even more locally: much of educational policy, for example), both politics and policy-making is increasingly nationalized.
Post by: WHAM on 11 Jan 2021, 06:14
The two party system also gives the US the look of a failed democracy, with each and every vote resulting in nearly half of the population not being catered to. Meanwhile in still functioning multi party democracies you can still get 70%+ support for initiatives and far more than 52% of voter support for the elected government.
Post by: Spelaeologist on 11 Jan 2021, 19:01
Quote
(It's awkward for me to play a double role of mod and participant in discussions like this. We should get a dedicated mod for this forum.)
Pick me, pick me. :) What a chance in years.
Have always dreamed of becoming one here and think I have what it takes to be good mod material.
Thank you for considering me.
Post by: Misj' on 11 Jan 2021, 21:48
Going by some map I saw a few days ago, the US actually is among the leading countries in percentage of the population with one university degree (or more).I don't think that map is correct.
SUMMARY: the official Dutch numbers contradict this map; and it's likely the map is an incorrect representation based on a misunderstanding of the education-structure and -level in non-US countries.
Let me first say, I only looked at the Dutch data (because I'm Dutch). The data I found was from 2017, so It's a bit more recent, and some discrepancies might be explained by that. But...the original map (https://ourworldindata.org/tertiary-education) states that in the Netherlands tertiary education was at 15.63% as opposed to the 26.76% in the USA. So being Dutch I was quite puzzled with that. Because I kinda feel I have some grasp on the world I live in. Both within my frame of reference, and somewhat outside. Though I'm absolutely certain there are a lot of people that I that are not represented in 'my' world.
Anyway, I started looking at some numbers. A Dutch TV-news-site (https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/de-kloof-tussen-lager-en-hogeropgeleiden/) from 2017, the Dutch Center for Statistics, and a government-site on education in numbers (https://www.onderwijsincijfers.nl/kengetallen/onderwijs-algemeen/hoogst-behaald-opleidingsniveau). And what I found was quite different from the map.
First of all, you need to understand that in the Netherlands - as with most countries - there a several levels of tertiary education. For simplicities sake just refer to them as low, medium, high, and university (and there's of course also PhD's and stuff). I'm going to use the government site, as it had lower numbers than the news-site (numbers that prove my point less well). If you look solely at the higher education - which, as I said, is a subset of the Dutch tertiary education - you see that in 2010 the actual numbers were 17.4 + 9.4 = 26.8%. In 2019 those numbers have risen to 20.6 + 11.9 = 32.5%. As I said, the actual numbers are higher because we only look at the higher tertiary education (simplified: the bachelor- and master-levels). The levels are of course different, if you solely look at the master-levels (11.9% in 2019). But...
a. that's not what the map claimed to be about, and b. you cannot directly compare universities in one country to another. For example you would not have - to be kinda on topic - have a Trump university. In the Netherlands this would be considered a medium level business school (most likely not even a higher-level business school because of the way it was organized). As an analogy, compare the term 'professor'. In the Netherlands it's a title reserved for a very select group. In simplified (though slightly incorrect) terms he's the chair of a scientific department (although a departement at a Dutch university would be something different from this department). In some countries, however, anyone with tenure is referred to as a professor. And then there are even countries (and I think that might be true for the US as well) where anyone teaching at an academic institute is called a professor. Which - to me - makes no sense at all...but that's because of my Dutch background.
So yeah...anyway, I understand the confusion. Also, the map was based on the data from Barro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Barro) and Lee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jong-Wha_Lee). Who just happen to both be associated with Harvard University in the USA. So I understand why their data would be skewed towards the US's approach to education. I'm not claiming their data is wrong (though I trust the official Dutch numbers much more). I'm just saying it doesn't measure what the map claimed it does.
Finally - and most importantly - I do not want to be a moderator, and I think Snarky, Wham, Blondbeard and everyone else here who still knows me, knows I would do a terrible job and would never offer it it me.
Post by: Blondbraid on 11 Jan 2021, 22:59
Post by: Cassiebsg on 11 Jan 2021, 23:09
Post by: Misj' on 11 Jan 2021, 23:13
Who's Blondbeard? ???You don't know him? - Great guy!
No really, my appologies (it's not even like you have the most difficult name here...I mean, how hard is it to write Braidedbeard, really?). I could blame dyslexia, the auto-correct, that at I was thinking of pirates lately, or the fact that I was tired. But in reality I was just typing lazily. Let's just pretend I edited the post, and call it fake news...
Post by: KyriakosCH on 12 Jan 2021, 02:55
Going by some map I saw a few days ago, the US actually is among the leading countries in percentage of the population with one university degree (or more).I don't think that map is correct.
SUMMARY: the official Dutch numbers contradict this map; and it's likely the map is an incorrect representation based on a misunderstanding of the education-structure and -level in non-US countries.
Let me first say, I only looked at the Dutch data (because I'm Dutch). The data I found was from 2017, so It's a bit more recent, and some discrepancies might be explained by that. But...the original map (https://ourworldindata.org/tertiary-education) states that in the Netherlands tertiary education was at 15.63% as opposed to the 26.76% in the USA. So being Dutch I was quite puzzled with that. Because I kinda feel I have some grasp on the world I live in. Both within my frame of reference, and somewhat outside. Though I'm absolutely certain there are a lot of people that I that are not represented in 'my' world.
Anyway, I started looking at some numbers. A Dutch TV-news-site (https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/de-kloof-tussen-lager-en-hogeropgeleiden/) from 2017, the Dutch Center for Statistics, and a government-site on education in numbers (https://www.onderwijsincijfers.nl/kengetallen/onderwijs-algemeen/hoogst-behaald-opleidingsniveau). And what I found was quite different from the map.
First of all, you need to understand that in the Netherlands - as with most countries - there a several levels of tertiary education. For simplicities sake just refer to them as low, medium, high, and university (and there's of course also PhD's and stuff). I'm going to use the government site, as it had lower numbers than the news-site (numbers that prove my point less well). If you look solely at the higher education - which, as I said, is a subset of the Dutch tertiary education - you see that in 2010 the actual numbers were 17.4 + 9.4 = 26.8%. In 2019 those numbers have risen to 20.6 + 11.9 = 32.5%. As I said, the actual numbers are higher because we only look at the higher tertiary education (simplified: the bachelor- and master-levels). The levels are of course different, if you solely look at the master-levels (11.9% in 2019). But...
a. that's not what the map claimed to be about, and b. you cannot directly compare universities in one country to another. For example you would not have - to be kinda on topic - have a Trump university. In the Netherlands this would be considered a medium level business school (most likely not even a higher-level business school because of the way it was organized). As an analogy, compare the term 'professor'. In the Netherlands it's a title reserved for a very select group. In simplified (though slightly incorrect) terms he's the chair of a scientific department (although a departement at a Dutch university would be something different from this department). In some countries, however, anyone with tenure is referred to as a professor. And then there are even countries (and I think that might be true for the US as well) where anyone teaching at an academic institute is called a professor. Which - to me - makes no sense at all...but that's because of my Dutch background.
So yeah...anyway, I understand the confusion. Also, the map was based on the data from Barro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Barro) and Lee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jong-Wha_Lee). Who just happen to both be associated with Harvard University in the USA. So I understand why their data would be skewed towards the US's approach to education. I'm not claiming their data is wrong (though I trust the official Dutch numbers much more). I'm just saying it doesn't measure what the map claimed it does.
Finally - and most importantly - I do not want to be a moderator, and I think Snarky, Wham, Blondbeard and everyone else here who still knows me, knows I would do a terrible job and would never offer it it me.
Afaik the map is about universities/people who graduated from a university (or then went to to get more uni degrees). In most countries that is what is meant when one says "tertiary education", although there are other schools you can go to after secondary education.
In Greece having a uni degree is a status symbol and many just have it without using it for work. For example, the market for medical doctors is entirely saturated, likewise for lawyers, but both those degrees are seen as a symbol of status so they keep getting more and more graduates.
And until Britain left the Eu, the number of students there from Greece was also high (I graduated from an English university: the University of Essex). :=
Post by: Blondbraid on 12 Jan 2021, 07:42
I guess some people don't know the difference between a braid and a beard. (laugh) More likely, though, he's like my son, reading the first few letters and guessing the word... it gives some odd questions/sentences once in a while. (laugh)
(laugh) (laugh) (laugh)Who's Blondbeard? ???You don't know him? - Great guy!
No really, my appologies (it's not even like you have the most difficult name here...I mean, how hard is it to write Braidedbeard, really?). I could blame dyslexia, the auto-correct, that at I was thinking of pirates lately, or the fact that I was tired. But in reality I was just typing lazily. Let's just pretend I edited the post, and call it fake news...
Post by: Misj' on 12 Jan 2021, 08:01
Quote
Afaik the map is about universities/people who graduated from a university (or then went to to get more uni degrees). In most countries that is what is meant when one says "tertiary education", although there are other schools you can go to after secondary education.I'm not going to hijack this thread...but...as I said, the term 'university' is not universal and cannot be compared. That being said, the map states that the data source is the world bank. And Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education) states: 'The World Bank, for example, defines tertiary education as including universities as well as trade schools and colleges'. While that definition is strictly speaking incorrect, it mostly matches the one I used in my previous post for simplicities sakes.
Post by: BarbWire on 12 Jan 2021, 12:12
However, it would appear that if this does take place, he will never be able to run for office again. Whew!
When questioned about the soon to be ex president, I loved Arnold Schwarzeneggar's view on the subject.
Quote: 'He will soon be irrelevant as an old tweet.'
Impersonating Arnie, my son added 'And he won't be back.' A bit of good news at last :)
Post by: Stupot on 12 Jan 2021, 12:48
Impersonating Arnie, my son added 'And he won't be back.' A bit of good news at last :)
Bravo. Your son is a man after my own heart.
Post by: WHAM on 12 Jan 2021, 13:56
However, it would appear that if this does take place, he will never be able to run for office again. Whew!
I've seen contradictory reporting on that. He might be able to run if not removed by the senate, at least, though I think it's going to be irrelevant. He may be dumb as a brick, but I doubt even he will want to take a second round of what he's been through.
If Trump is the leading Republican candidate in 2024, I will eat a whole tin of surströmming (and probably die).
Post by: Snarky on 12 Jan 2021, 15:40
The common view among legal scholars, as I understand it, is that being barred from future office (on top of being removed from the current one) is an optional punishment that the Senate can choose to impose, or not, as part of the verdict, if they convict. Presumably they would do so if Trump was convicted after the end of his term. (Edit: The Constitution does not specify how this should be determined, but apparently the accepted practice upon conviction is to immediately take a separate "sentencing" vote on whether to bar the convicted person from future office. It's unclear whether this vote also requires a two-thirds majority, like for conviction, or merely a simple majority. In past cases, involving federal judges, the Senate has applied a simple majority threshold. But a vote that didn't reach a two-thirds majority could potentially be challenged.)
An impeachment trial after the term of office has expired is in itself a novel situation that is not anticipated in the Constitution (though there may be precedents with cases involving other offices, I don't know). You would think that'd mean that Trump could challenge its legality before the Supreme Court, but that's pure speculation on my part.
I must say I'm surprised that it looks like Democrats in the House are moving forward with impeachment, which is only a little bit more than a symbolic exercise at this point, and still seems unlikely to result in conviction the second time around, given the utter shamelessness and lack of patriotic duty demonstrated by most of the GOP (many of the members of the jury are, after all, co-conspirators). The politics of it are uncertain at best, too. Could it really be… a matter of principle? (And anger, I suppose.) Or perhaps it's the argument that unless a clear message is successfully sent that actions such as this will not be tolerated, democracy is absolutely screwed, so there really is no choice but to try it.
Post by: KyriakosCH on 12 Jan 2021, 16:25
Also, while Trump is unlikely to run again, others in his family might - so they could make some informal deal with the gop not to run as independent in 2024.
Post by: Blondbraid on 12 Jan 2021, 20:48
(https://uploads.dailydot.com/2021/01/trump-manatee.jpg?fit=scale&fm=pjpg&h=511&ixlib=php-3.3.0&w=1024&wpsize=large)
Post by: KyriakosCH on 12 Jan 2021, 21:15
:=
Post by: Cassiebsg on 12 Jan 2021, 22:09
Post by: heltenjon on 12 Jan 2021, 22:27
I will eat a whole tin of surströmming (and probably die).
Now THIS is game material! 8-0
Or at least a Black Story. :-D
Post by: Honza on 12 Jan 2021, 22:51
If Trump is the leading Republican candidate in 2024, I will eat a whole tin of surströmming (and probably die).
(https://i.ibb.co/VWT0Zw9/remember.png)
Post by: Gilbert on 13 Jan 2021, 01:18
Either way, marine life loses.
Post by: mkennedy on 13 Jan 2021, 04:31
If Trump is the leading Republican candidate in 2024, I will eat a whole tin of surströmming (and probably die).
If trump ever holds office again, we will likely all be the ones doing the dying.
Post by: BarbWire on 13 Jan 2021, 14:37
Hi Wham
You were correct about the Senate featuring in trumps removal from office, never to run again.
Please don't take the drastic action of eating a whole tin of Surstromming, if things go horribly wrong.
I had never actually heard of this...er...delicacy, but when I investigated, it is described as the worst
smelling fish in the world. I saw a video of a tin of this fermented fish being opened and an onlooker
nearly throwing up. Cucumber has the same effect on my husband :)
Post by: BarbWire on 13 Jan 2021, 14:49
Hi Blondbraid
What was done to that poor Manatee was disgusting. I would like to get hold of whoever committed this atrocity,
and carve how I feel about them into their skin. I could cover their whole body in no time.
Why human politics should have a detrimental effect on animals I do not know. The quicker Trump goes the better >:(
Post by: Khris on 13 Jan 2021, 15:46
Regarding impeachment, it's far from just symbolic as I understand. Besides not being able to run again, Trump would also lose access to lifelong intelligence briefings and his pension.
Post by: WHAM on 13 Jan 2021, 15:50
Please don't take the drastic action of eating a whole tin of Surstromming, if things go horribly wrong.
I am a man of my word, dammit! My life may now rely on Donald Trump doing something sensible.
Oh Gods, I am dead, aren't I?
Post by: BarbWire on 13 Jan 2021, 18:40
Hahaha! I like it Wham.
On another note I find it rather worrying that Trump is in possession of a nuclear code. This, evidently, is on
a plastic card nicknamed 'The biscuit.' There is also a ' Nuclear football' which is a black briefcase used to launch
a nuclear attack, away from command. so, he will never go hungry and always have something to keep his feet occupied :)
Seriously, though, as he is prone to throwing his dummy out of the pram, when he doesn't get his own way, it makes you wonder
where this could lead. I do hope they search the nasty little Trump's pocketsis when he leaves office. :-D
Post by: mkennedy on 13 Jan 2021, 19:07
... I do hope they search the nasty little Trump's pocketsis when he leaves office. :-D
Hopefully after Trump's out of office they'll issue new codes so the old ones won't work anymore. Kind of like changing the locks which is also something they may need to do to keep him out of the white house.
Post by: Snarky on 13 Jan 2021, 20:37
Regarding impeachment, it's far from just symbolic as I understand. Besides not being able to run again, Trump would also lose access to lifelong intelligence briefings and his pension.
Not being able to run again would be a worthwhile outcome. After last week I hope he would find it impossible to be elected again anyway, but although it is horrifying to contemplate, I must admit that it's impossible to be quite certain of that. But there is probably an inverse relationship between the danger and the hope of addressing it: if Republicans are now willing to break with him, the chance of his election in four years is low. On the other hand, if they are not, then the hope of conviction is nil.
The other stuff, however, is minor. Yes, it is galling to think of Trump walking away with a hefty pension, a travel allowance, and Secret Service protection for the rest of his life, but in the big picture it does not matter. The intelligence briefings could potentially be worrisome—he is, obviously, a huge security risk—but that access is provided as a courtesy and as a matter of tradition; it is not something he is entitled to by law.
Post by: Mandle on 13 Jan 2021, 21:50
Hopefully after Trump's out of office they'll issue new codes so the old ones won't work anymore. Kind of like changing the locks which is also something they may need to do to keep him out of the white house.
I believe the codes are changed quite often, if not daily.
Post by: Blondbraid on 13 Jan 2021, 22:04
Please don't take the drastic action of eating a whole tin of Surstromming, if things go horribly wrong.I've never been able to eat regular fish, and I've always found the smell of it nauseating.
I had never actually heard of this...er...delicacy, but when I investigated, it is described as the worst
smelling fish in the world. I saw a video of a tin of this fermented fish being opened and an onlooker
nearly throwing up. Cucumber has the same effect on my husband :)
However, I actually tried Surströmming for the first time last year, and it was not that bad. I think the smell of the Surströmming overpowered the disgusting smell of fish. It actually smells like a really pungent french cheese more than anything else.
Of course, I only tasted a small piece, but the key is to make sure you open the can inside a bucket of water, and once you eat it, you eat it with some chopped onions.
Though I've always thought food should be like female characters;
STRONG
Post by: BarbWire on 14 Jan 2021, 14:34
Think i will still pass on the surstromming, Blondbraid, even though you have tried your best to speak out in its defence.
Yes, women characters should be strong, but still retain their femininity. Kathryn Janeway, in Star Trek, springs to mind.
Post by: Danvzare on 14 Jan 2021, 17:58
Though I've always thought food should be like female characters;I like my female characters how I like all of my characters... well written. (nod)
STRONG
Also, from the sound of it, I think my mother would really like that surstromming.
She likes really strong smelling fish you see.
Post by: Blondbraid on 14 Jan 2021, 22:06
Well, you can't win em' all. (roll)
Think i will still pass on the surstromming, Blondbraid, even though you have tried your best to speak out in its defence.
Yes, women characters should be strong, but still retain their femininity. Kathryn Janeway, in Star Trek, springs to mind.
As for whether strong women should retain their femininity, I get what you mean, but I still liked how Ripley from the first Alen movie was originally written as a man but still worked when played by Sigourney Weaver.
I like my female characters how I like all of my characters... well written. (nod)True that! Too many writers throw in a character who only look cool, but never actually does anything interesting.
Also, from the sound of it, I think my mother would really like that surstromming.Maybe, but keep in mind that it doesn't smell like any regular fish.
She likes really strong smelling fish you see.
Post by: Mandle on 14 Jan 2021, 22:57
Maybe, but keep in mind that it doesn't smell like any regular fish.
Perhaps something similar to the Japanese fish preparation method called "Kusaya".... actually I just Googled it and the first sentence is:
"Kusaya (くさや) is a Japanese style salted, dried and fermented fish. It has a pungent smell and is similar to the fermented Swedish herring surströmming."
It is banned in hotel rooms here in Japan as it is very hard to get the smell out of carpets and curtains etc. and it lingers for a long time.
I've smelt it once and it smells like really pungent manure. Never tasted it. I just... couldn't.
Post by: Khris on 15 Jan 2021, 12:56
To get this back on track, here's an exclusive view into how the conservative* mind works:
(https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2021/01/sorbo.jpg)
*yes, I know, tell it to someone who cares
Post by: WHAM on 15 Jan 2021, 13:10
If read as malicious, this person is calling for outright murder of lawmakers.
If read cautiously, this person is hoping to see some historical change of attitudes and a newfound fellowship between people.
My guess is the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, a case of hopeless optimism and then, at the end, denial of facts to avoid having to accept the difficult reality of what actually happened.
Or do some of you know this person directly, and have discussed the matter with them and thus have some further insight into their thought process?
I feel like we keep seeing people take tiny tweets, restricted in content and context, and use them as weapons to "prove" the people they dislike to be evil and thus free game for some sort of retaliation or harm, though hopefully I am wrong here.
Post by: Khris on 15 Jan 2021, 13:24
Post by: WHAM on 15 Jan 2021, 13:30
Post by: Blondbraid on 15 Jan 2021, 14:57
Oh, hey, he used to be Hercules in that show I loved as a kid! Neat!From what I've seen after that Kevin Sorbo started starring mostly in Evangelical Christian propaganda films made for right-wing Americans.
Post by: WHAM on 15 Jan 2021, 15:12
From what I've seen after that Kevin Sorbo started starring mostly in Evangelical Christian propaganda films made for right-wing Americans.
Eh, not my cup of tea, but a job is a job. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm aware.
Also: how is some random dudes opinions on twitter any less derailing from the topic of Trump than anything else discussed here?
Post by: Reiter on 15 Jan 2021, 16:13
However, it would appear that if this does take place, he will never be able to run for office again. Whew!
I've seen contradictory reporting on that. He might be able to run if not removed by the senate, at least, though I think it's going to be irrelevant. He may be dumb as a brick, but I doubt even he will want to take a second round of what he's been through.
If Trump is the leading Republican candidate in 2024, I will eat a whole tin of surströmming (and probably die).
I shall join you. I will come over with the vodka. We will need it. Surströmming is a delight if you are sufficiently drunk. Which we will need to be if the Trumpet comes back for more. Blondbraid (and her male doppelgänger Blondbeard) could join us, as well. A picnic under distressing circumstances but a picnic nonetheless!
Oh, hey, he used to be Hercules in that show I loved as a kid! Neat!From what I've seen after that Kevin Sorbo started starring mostly in Evangelical Christian propaganda films made for right-wing Americans.
How very silly of him. God does not need propaganda. Mr Sorbo could be doing marketing for someone who needs it.
As for the manatee story; bugger them*. That is not done. Poor things.
As for the rest of it, it is amusing to see simply how severely Mr Trump has fallen on his arse this time. Truly a tweet too far. I do hope this impeachment business goes well, so that we do not have the distinct displeasure of having him back in office for anything more significant than a golf club. Not to mention changing the guards policy of the Capitol. It just seems outrageously unfair to leave it next to unguarded during an event like this, with all the potential it had to kick off, compared to how fortified the blasted place was this last summer. Dangerous, too, truly. A firm barrier at the right time saves lives.
*The perpetrators, I hasten to add. Manatees are guilty of nothing but being delightfully fat.
Post by: WHAM on 15 Jan 2021, 18:55
I shall join you. I will come over with the vodka. We will need it. Surströmming is a delight if you are sufficiently drunk. Which we will need to be if the Trumpet comes back for more.
I'll welcome the company, but I have to leave the drinking to you. I don't touch that stuff myself. :-D
Post by: Blondbraid on 16 Jan 2021, 21:02
Well, apparently he directed and did the writing for at least one of them according to imdb, and there's not been much money in any of those films. I'm fairly certain he picked evangelical films because he likes evangelical films.From what I've seen after that Kevin Sorbo started starring mostly in Evangelical Christian propaganda films made for right-wing Americans.Eh, not my cup of tea, but a job is a job. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm aware.
Post by: Ali on 17 Jan 2021, 01:05
Well, apparently he directed and did the writing for at least one of them according to imdb, and there's not been much money in any of those films. I'm fairly certain he picked evangelical films because he likes evangelical films.
For what it's worth, God is Not Dead is a hilariously bad film - an extremely crass oppression fantasy in which Christians are silenced by moustache-twirling atheists. It's unpersuasive in terms of proselytizing, because it fundamentally misunderstands what atheists think. It centres around an atheist/Christian debate, in which the participants do nothing but quote famous scientists at each other. There's no concern for things like evidence or reasoning; Hawking and Einstein are just invoked as if they're were the saints of atheism. It's a style of Christian argumentation and the writers don't seem to be aware that other people do debates differently.
Kevin "disappointed" Sorbo gives the best performance in it. Which should be all the information you need.
Post by: Danvzare on 17 Jan 2021, 17:49
That honestly sounds like the way stuck up atheists think Christians see atheists. Are we certain that the film wasn't made by atheists? Because I could definitely see myself making a film like that. (laugh)Well, apparently he directed and did the writing for at least one of them according to imdb, and there's not been much money in any of those films. I'm fairly certain he picked evangelical films because he likes evangelical films.
For what it's worth, God is Not Dead is a hilariously bad film - an extremely crass oppression fantasy in which Christians are silenced by moustache-twirling atheists. It's unpersuasive in terms of proselytizing, because it fundamentally misunderstands what atheists think. It centres around an atheist/Christian debate, in which the participants do nothing but quote famous scientists at each other. There's no concern for things like evidence or reasoning; Hawking and Einstein are just invoked as if they're were the saints of atheism. It's a style of Christian argumentation and the writers don't seem to be aware that other people do debates differently.
Kevin "disappointed" Sorbo gives the best performance in it. Which should be all the information you need.
Post by: KyriakosCH on 18 Jan 2021, 02:30
Can't say I blame her. That green party has the awesome "Ok boomer" girl.
Post by: Blondbraid on 18 Jan 2021, 11:50
That honestly sounds like the way stuck up atheists think Christians see atheists. Are we certain that the film wasn't made by atheists? Because I could definitely see myself making a film like that. (laugh)Poe's Law, everyone. (roll)
Post by: Ali on 18 Jan 2021, 13:43
While the greatHerculesHerakles votes for the gop, snowflake Zena apparently supports the green party of New Zealand :=
The virgin Hercules versus the chad Xena?
Post by: Reiter on 19 Jan 2021, 23:04
Of course, I'm an atheist - so please watch God Is Not Dead and come to the conclusion that it's terrible on your own.
Speaking as a Christian* I cannot say that I wish to. It sounds quite dreary, and it is the sort of moaning and self-congratulating that I find quite difficult. I suppose that it is also that it is part of that very stupid game where the participants are asked to choose Team Science or Team Christ. That game does no good but the leading participants, and the type of people who live to grind axes. It seems like a rather wasteful picture, when there are so many good news that they could tell. If I am the intended audience, I decline it.
* I think. That is the path and the oath I chose, and it ought to be enough but I imagine that those evangelical types would find me a theological disaster area.
I shall join you. I will come over with the vodka. We will need it. Surströmming is a delight if you are sufficiently drunk. Which we will need to be if the Trumpet comes back for more.
I'll welcome the company, but I have to leave the drinking to you. I don't touch that stuff myself. :-D
More Koskenkorva for me! Division of labour. If that man ever does manage to hack a presidency campaign together again, at least I have something to look forward to.
Now, I do hope that the inauguration goes as planned. Of course, with the capitol full of guardsmen and everyone at the ready, I can hardly believe it would not. Certainly not now, when the first shock is waning. What happened in the capitol hall will of course be a division and a dark cloud for a very, very long time, but with Biden and some other grown-ups back in charge, things do seem to be looking up at last. It is well worth enduring the Trumpet's final volleys of empty boasting from the pulpet he shall soon have to relinquish. And, as pathetic as it was, there was a sense of vindication in finally seeing that bumbling cad finally burned his fingers.
Post by: WHAM on 20 Jan 2021, 09:31
More Koskenkorva for me! Division of labour.
What, no salmiakki to go with it?
Alas, today ends the most entertaining 4 years of American politics. Let us hope that Biden doesn't drag the US right back to all of their old tricks. We've had enough of the warmongering world police. I see a lot of newspapers saying that "Biden is now becoming the leader of the free world", but I think that title has been lost to the US presidency long before Trump even came to office. Maybe around the Bush Junior years. To see something positive in the Trump years: he reminded us all that the rest of the western world should not rely solely on the US and NATO for their protection and stability, and countries should look inward once more, to ensure their own house of cards is in order before preaching beyond their own borders.
Post by: Kastchey on 20 Jan 2021, 20:40
That honestly sounds like the way stuck up atheists think Christians see atheists. Are we certain that the film wasn't made by atheists? Because I could definitely see myself making a film like that. (laugh)Podcasts by extremist theists or call-in shows with theist callers can provide a good perspective. Once in a while you will hear someone calling the theory of evolution or even science in general a belief system and people like Richard Dawkins "atheist prophets" or "atheist preachers". I seriously doubt that the people repeating this BS are all secretly atheist.
I don't think they are the majority (I sure HOPE they are not), but they don't seem to be all that uncommon.
Post by: mkennedy on 20 Jan 2021, 22:21
Alas, today ends the most entertaining 4 years of American politics. Let us hope that Biden doesn't drag the US right back to all of their old tricks. We've had enough of the warmongering world police. I see a lot of newspapers saying that "Biden is now becoming the leader of the free world", but I think that title has been lost to the US presidency long before Trump even came to office. Maybe around the Bush Junior years. To see something positive in the Trump years: he reminded us all that the rest of the western world should not rely solely on the US and NATO for their protection and stability, and countries should look inward once more, to ensure their own house of cards is in order before preaching beyond their own borders.That probably could have been accomplished with a Ron/Rand Paul presidency though. And that wouldn't have resulted in the deaths of 400000+ Americans.
Post by: WHAM on 20 Jan 2021, 22:34
Post by: mkennedy on 20 Jan 2021, 22:40
Considering the lack of funding and the general state of public healthcare in the US even during previous presidencies, I find it a bit of a weird fantasy to think that if only we'd avoided a Trump presidency then, magically, nobody would have died of Covid in the US.Of course there would still be deaths, but there likely wouldn't be nearly as many. Probably less than half or even a quarter of what we have now.
Post by: WHAM on 20 Jan 2021, 22:46
Post by: Stupot on 21 Jan 2021, 00:47
Governments fucking up their coronavirus response is pretty much the norm. Saying he’s personally responsible for 400000 deaths is like blaming an avalanche that destroyed your village on the guy who left the gate open.* It’s a terrible statistic but not the worst in the world as a percentage of population (UK is worse, another major policy fuck-up).
*Though admittedly some will be quick to point out that experts had been warning about this type of avalanche for years and the village leaders were supposed to be investing in better gates but they got complacent, so that will need investigating.
Post by: mkennedy on 26 Jan 2021, 02:35
Post by: WHAM on 26 Jan 2021, 11:26
https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000007760512.html
Finnish columnist and historian: "How bad was Trump, really."
In his column he considers certain similarities between Trump and the cold war era figures Nikita Khrushchev and Ronald Reagan. The former as the kind of unthinkably loud and obnoxious figure who still managed to bring about meaningful changes, and the latter as someone who was panned as the worst possible kind of idiot in their own time by the media, but is rather fondly remembered later on. Whether Trumps legacy will actually stand up in similar ways over time, we'll see. The columnist notes that the only area where he thinks Trump will truly be remembered as a negative influence is in the matters of climate change and preservation.
As for evaluating Trump as a leader, he will be judged not only against those who came before, but also those who come after.
To quote: "If Trump is 'the worst there ever was', we'll run out of superlatives to describe leaders far too soon. Will we even know to fear the truly terrible future leaders, who don't simply polarize the voterbase, but actually press the button."
Post by: Cassiebsg on 26 Jan 2021, 16:48
Post by: Danvzare on 27 Jan 2021, 18:15
No we won't. We'll just go with "worse than Trump!" And that says it all. ;)And if someone is worse then that person, we'll just say "worse than *insert name of previous worst president here*."
You really can't run out of descriptions for terrible leaders. (laugh)
Post by: Blondbraid on 27 Jan 2021, 21:53
Yep, it's not like words are fossil fuel.No we won't. We'll just go with "worse than Trump!" And that says it all. ;)And if someone is worse then that person, we'll just say "worse than *insert name of previous worst president here*."
You really can't run out of descriptions for terrible leaders. (laugh)
Also, strong feelings often require strong words. It's hard to call people to action with a bunch of "perhaps" and "maybe".
Post by: WHAM on 28 Jan 2021, 07:42
It's all just the same, as people lose perspective, and the same effect is pretty evident in the polarization of the US, where everyone who disagrees with you is either the devil or a nazi or potentially both. The words themselves lose their meaning.
See: everyone who has said 2020 was the worst year ever, when in reality it was a rather inconvenient year, but for the vast majority of people it wasn't all that bad after all.
Post by: Phemar on 28 Jan 2021, 12:10
Having become President and commander of the armed forces, Trump's ego swells to even more grandiose proportions. He is hooked on the high of adulation, and responds to any criticism or attack with uncontrolled fury. Having alienated much of the political establishment (particularly the foreign policy establishment), his administration is short on expertise and full of extremists, sycophants and charlatans. His undisciplined, impulsive and downright foolish words and actions, as well as the missteps of the other unqualified administration members, cause numerous international and economic crises, to which his instinct is to respond with aggression and escalation. Hopefully his easy manipulability (just flatter him) and more rational actors in other countries manage to stop these crises from sparking wider war.
Encouraged by Trump's lack of support for American alliances, Russia, China and other states step up confrontation with their neighboring countries. South Korea and Japan respond by rearming, which may include a nuclear weapons program. Other East Asian states make concessions, resigning themselves to increased Chinese influence. In the former communist states in Europe there's a decrease in faith in all the institutions and ideals of "the West": EU, NATO, liberal democracy. NATO continues to weaken and fracture (not just because of Trump, but also by the erosion of democracy in countries like Poland, Hungary and Turkey), and with no reassurance of common defense, individual countries start to arm up and pursue separate defense strategies. There's a worldwide rise in militarism and nationalism.
The US abandons many of its treaties, including the Iran treaty (so Iran resumes its nuclear weapons program), NAFTA (causing a loss in trade with Mexico that weakens the economy), the Paris climate change treaty (setting back any effective action to stop the ongoing global environmental disaster), and more. "Obamacare" is only partially abolished, but millions of Americans do lose their health care. Deep tax cuts lead to giant deficits, and to cuts in government programs and staffing. Anti-trade policies and attempts to "get tough" in trade negotiations with China and other countries lead to retributory policies that may escalate into a trade war. Together with the uncertainty caused by Trump's erratic behavior, this causes the economy to plunge into another recession.
On immigration, Trump's signature policies (the wall, deportation) are watered down or only carried out to a symbolic extent; most of his supporters don't notice, but some hardliners decry him as a traitor. In matters of social justice (police violence etc.), a Trump administration is unsympathetic and tin-eared, and this leads to increased social unrest. Killings both of cops and of black activists, by disturbed individuals who have been radicalized online, increase.
Blaming Muslims as a group for jihadist terrorism, Trump continues to nourish Islamophobia in America. Hate crimes against Muslims (and those who can be mistaken for Muslims) rise. Marginalized in this way, more Muslims are in fact radicalized into violence, while a larger group is drawn towards anti-Trump liberal politics. In the Muslim world, the narrative that the west is at war with Islam gains increased acceptance, delegitimizing American values and influences and strengthening extremists and authoritarian governments alike.
Coming into office as a sexual predator with a long list of scandals, a track record of fraud and illegality, not having isolated himself from his business interests, and with ties to organized crime, international fugitives and foreign oligarchs and dictators, Trump's administration quickly shows itself to be the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in memory, with Trump blatantly using the government to enrich himself. These scandals get considerable play in the media, but the GOP Congress is too craven and partisan to take any action to censure or rein him in, at least at first.
Already loathed and feared by half the country, Trump's shtick wears thin very quickly even for many who voted for him. His approval ratings fall to somewhere around the George W. Bush low point of 25%. Resentful and vindictive, he lashes out at his enemies and tries to use the powers of his office to get even with them. This leads to illegalities and abuses that dwarf Watergate.
... So, all around a fun few years ahead.
Wow Snarky, this was uhh... surprisingly accurate.
Post by: Ali on 28 Jan 2021, 13:37
Meaningless hyperbole drains people, though. If everything is "the worst X ever", then eventually nothing is really the worst. Same for "best X ever".
It's all just the same, as people lose perspective, and the same effect is pretty evident in the polarization of the US, where everyone who disagrees with you is either the devil or a nazi or potentially both. The words themselves lose their meaning.
See: everyone who has said 2020 was the worst year ever, when in reality it was a rather inconvenient year, but for the vast majority of people it wasn't all that bad after all.
The 2004 Tsunami wasn't all that bad for the vast majority of people - just the people affected by the Tsunami. Maybe they should stop moaning - after all, a worse Tsunami might happen in the future?
Post by: Cassiebsg on 28 Jan 2021, 16:34
So it's always relative to the person that speaks and his/her life experiences. But you're not dumb, so you know this already. Which makes me wonder why it would even be needed to have to say it. ???
Post by: WHAM on 28 Jan 2021, 16:48
Which makes me wonder why it would even be needed to have to say it. ???
A pet peeve of mine, seeing words used in ways that devalue them and erode their purpose. Nothing more than that. It's been increasingly prevalent in discussions over certain topics, such as politics, over the past half decade or so, which is why that column I linked to felt especially meaningful as part of this particular conversation. It does people good to have a wider perspective on things, rather than letting their personal biases and loose language lead them to think all the world shares their "absolutely correct" worldview.
Congrats on the job, by the way!
Post by: Ali on 28 Jan 2021, 16:58
It is, of course, hyperbolic to call Donald Trump "a literal Nazi". But it's also somewhat more truthful than calling him "not a Nazi," because he shares many characteristics with racialist, far-right leaders (including enjoying the support of the far-right). I'm not excessively concerned that people saying "Nazi" as a shorthand for "white supremacist right-wing authoritarian" will lead to any genuine confusion.
Post by: Danvzare on 28 Jan 2021, 17:16
Meaningless hyperbole drains people, though. If everything is "the worst X ever", then eventually nothing is really the worst. Same for "best X ever".Have you ever seen how "gamers" act? 8-0
I wish you were right, but unfortunately you clearly aren't.
And if "gamers" can keep up the meaningless hyperbole for this long without being drained, I'm fairly sure everyone else can. Especially when it comes down to politics.
Post by: Crimson Wizard on 28 Jan 2021, 18:34
Which makes me wonder why it would even be needed to have to say it. ???
A pet peeve of mine, seeing words used in ways that devalue them and erode their purpose. Nothing more than that. It's been increasingly prevalent in discussions over certain topics, such as politics, over the past half decade or so,
To me it seems always been this way as long as I remember, there is a kind of people who like to do this, in regards to any possible topic or context.
I.e. every time there's some natural disaster people start posting same "nature is warning us, maybe it does not want us on this planet anymore, blablabla" (to which I always add in mind "remember dinosaurs! they did not listen when they should have!").
Post by: WHAM on 28 Jan 2021, 18:48
And if "gamers" can keep up the meaningless hyperbole for this long without being drained, I'm fairly sure everyone else can. Especially when it comes down to politics.
Aren't gamers the prime example of wearing their superlatives thin? I've seen so many games called "best game ever", in some cases before the game is even out and playable (see: Cyberpunk 2077) that it's become an utterly meaningless phrase. Same for review scores.
Post by: Blondbraid on 28 Jan 2021, 22:38
Post by: Danvzare on 30 Jan 2021, 16:21
And if "gamers" can keep up the meaningless hyperbole for this long without being drained, I'm fairly sure everyone else can. Especially when it comes down to politics.
Aren't gamers the prime example of wearing their superlatives thin? I've seen so many games called "best game ever", in some cases before the game is even out and playable (see: Cyberpunk 2077) that it's become an utterly meaningless phrase. Same for review scores.
You know that picture with the cup and two faces. I feel like we're talking about that.
Because the reason you just brought up, was the exact same reason why I brought it up in the first place. But clearly we're both looking at it from different viewpoints. ???
Post by: WHAM on 31 Jan 2021, 08:57
A good life lesson, as well as a valuable tool for online discourse and media literacy, I feel.