What are your predictions for the next four years?
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.
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.
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.
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.
People are fucking frightened of what's been validated here.
It's a swastika whichever way it's facing. It's just not a Nazi swastika.
...Chilling read, man, even if only half of that comes true. :-X
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 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?
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 :(
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.
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
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'
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
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.
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?
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.
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.”
2016 will be remembered as the year 4chan put a man in the white house
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.”
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."
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.
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.
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.
Quote2016 will be remembered as the year 4chan put a man in the white house
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"
Having become President and commander of the armed forces...
... So, all around a fun few years ahead.
*Gets Flame Shield up*
I'm actually glad (and relieved) Trump won.
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.
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?
... And some, I assume, are good people.
... 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.
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.
They insisted on lifting up the most openly corrupt female politician in history.
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)
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!!!
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.
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.
... And some, I assume, are good people.
...Some of us may want to edit our posts to comply with the first point in particular.
... 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 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.
And I have heard a lot of people who are otherwise Democrats opposing Hillary for simply being female.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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!!! >:(
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/)
A candidate can skirt and exploit the law and still be morally reprehensible and unfit for office.
Reality check: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656
But there were like two or three other candidates?
Why choose the lesser of two evils when there are candidates that aren't evil?
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!!! >:(
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?
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.
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?
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!"
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?
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:
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.
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 really don't know why so many women voted for trump?I personally don't, either. Could you please teach me?
:-D
You really don't know why so many women voted for trump?I personally don't, either. Could you please teach me?
:-D
I personally don't, either. Could you please teach me?
Now, I wonder why would immigrants (Muslims or Non-Muslims) vote for Trump?Because she's a woman.
Reality check: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656
It seems to be happening right now.
Civil war.
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.
...sixties and early seventies...
Ha ha ha! (laugh)Now, I wonder why would immigrants (Muslims or Non-Muslims) vote for Trump?Because she's a woman.
(http://www.designsponge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/madman_season7.jpg)
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.
A little off-topic here, but why was this thread called Trumpmageddon rather than Trumpocalypse?
Reality check: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656And that this was unfortunately something I was expecting to see (though hoping to be wrong). :~(
I seriously wonder how the latest South Park episode would have gone as well.
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/
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.
Yeah, I'm also kind of surprised at all the political correctness radiating from 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:
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.
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.
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 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.)
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.
Again, "SJW" is used by the extreme/alt right to refer to "anyone left of me".
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.
So Trump has announced that he will keep some key provisions of Obamacare and there won't be a wholesale repeal.
"Obamacare" is only partially abolished, but millions of Americans do lose their health care.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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-)
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.
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."
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.
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.
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 don't mind you singling me out, but I don't see anything bigoted in dactylopus's quote.
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.
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)
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.
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.
...and none of their stories even approach the truth in even the most roundabout way.
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.
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.
How dare I point out that you support your beliefs with statements which are 100% false?
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.
Even the word 'literally' hasn't meant 'literally' for like a million years.
Anyway, I've made my point. I'll not gain anything by arguing with a self-identified -ist.
if ArmaGeddonS==true
{
cChirstJones.ChangeRoom(AGSForums, AnyWalkOnWaterableArea);
aHallelujah.Play(HighestMount, EternallyRepeat);
oCrucialFix.Visible=true;
}
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.
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 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.
Do I think hate-crimes will increase?
No, I don't.
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.
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?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...
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
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.
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.
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.
Hate crimes have already increased.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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, 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.
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.
Again, these are signs, symptoms of how radically different Trump is as a candidate.
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".
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.
"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)"
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 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).
- 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not a politician or an expert on constitutional law.
Neither is Donald Trump :P
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?
That's not what I asked.
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.
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?
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.
You feel that way. Trump supporters do not.
If I have the choice between drones and nukes, I'll grudgingly take drones.
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.
Until you can accept that you're going to continue to be disappointed and angry and intolerant.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
Like, clearly I'm incapable of thinking like a Trump voter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
though, it has to be said, intolerance to viewpoints and disagreeing with them, however strongly, are two vastly different things
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...
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 stopexplaibothering you with my propaganda now.
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?
for somebody calling people out for disrespecting other opinions, you sure show a lot of disrespect for other people's opinions
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.
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.
[Trump] sounds, as usual, like he has no real idea what he's talking about [..]He has my vote! (roll)
Nice to see things finally calming down in here. :-D
I was starting to get worried.
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)
Anyway you keep speaking of how Hillary was more evil than Trump
Nice to see things finally calming down in here. :-D
I was starting to get worried.
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.
I hope he does well and that the unrest and violence in the schools and streets of the US calm down soon.
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.
All in all I feel the US elected a president that well represents the public image of their nation.
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.
But the economic issues in this election pale in comparison to the social issues.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
they are taking jobs that real citizens could doAre you actually being serious?
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.
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.
It has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.
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.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:
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/)
Are you actually being serious?
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).
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 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.
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.
Some cultures and ways of thinking are simply better and more wholesome than others, and I will stubbornly never change my mind on that.
Again with quoting sources that don't even remotely say what you allege they say!
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?
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"?
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.
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!
But considering the difference between discriminate and dislike (one is passive, the other is active), you can see my probing for clarification
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.
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!
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.
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?
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?
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.
It's like a school play, but with old, white morons.
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.
Could everyone PLEASE not try to bring race into the room full of rich white blokes?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps you could explain to me how you think that woman and corrupt are perfectly separable, but white and moron are not.
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)
Whenever someone says race, gender or background doesn't matter, I think of this Monty Python quote:
In conclusion, kill whitey.
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.
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 have a problem with someone bringing race into an insult or advocating killing a particular racial group.
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"?
My point was that "white morons" was dangerously close to "corrupt females".
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.
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). :=
For the avoidance of doubt, when I said "kill whitey," I meant that white people should die.
Why does anyone still support this wretched bloated rotten tangerine again? I can see zero reason to.
creation of the white identity, which is a political construct
creation of the white identity, which is a political construct
What does this even mean?
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.
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.
I don't see the relevance of that, please expand.
These identities didn't just develop organically, they were created.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In groups and out groups existed before then, but never along modern "racial" lines, but more cultural and linguistic ones.
It would be more scientific if there had been some blacks in the room too.
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
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.
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.
There was one candidate we might've been slightly less worse-off under, but he got taken behind the woodshed.
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.
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.
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.
Ah yes, good old "both-sides-are-equally-bad"-ism. Lowering my respect for AGSers since 2004.
*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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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...)
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.
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/).
US trade is looking more sustainableNope (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-win-nafta-talks-241617).
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).
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/).
QuoteUS trade is looking more sustainableNope (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-win-nafta-talks-241617).
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).
It's also fairly sunny today, so all due credit to Trump for that.
And the fact that he still refuses to point blank say that white supremacists are bad, period, makes em feel even safer.
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)
And the whole Dow Jones thing is just a red herring.
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.
Forrest Gump was based on a book?
Daaamn. I feel like I should've known that.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
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.
America sure is better under his rule, isn't it.
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.
I guess the game plan then is to wait 60 years for Kim to die and hope his son is better.
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.
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.
Trump's approach is really a unique one, even for him. It almost makes you wonder if there is some ulterior motive
You can't simply pluck a democratically elected leader away because you don't like them.
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.
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".
he would get replaced by Pence. .
But on what grounds would he be impeached?
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.
It just shows how easily people are misinformed and will believe anything that supports their own preconceived notions.
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...
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
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
Hope that was tongue-in-cheek, KhrisNot at all.
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.
Deep tax cuts lead to giant deficits, and to cuts in government programs and staffing.
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%.
It just shows how easily people are misinformed and will believe anything that supports their own preconceived notions.
<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.
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.
Nevertheless, I got a bit paranoid the other day and deleted some of my less friendly tweets to/about Trump.
So, Trump has officially been impeached
About as expected, I would say. Some things a bit worse, some things a bit better. Overall, a complete shitshow.
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.
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.
So, Trump has officially been impeached
miscalculations
"Crony nullification" seems like a mischaracterization.
"Jury nullification" is when a jury refuses to convict a defendant even though they know he is guilty.
(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
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.
I don't know why some people make fun of this topic... This is more important than you know...
I don't know why some people make fun of this topic... This is more important than you know...
It's this: https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1324045463973203969
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. :-\
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.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.
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.
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.
Sanders dropped out from the nomination race when he had no realistic hope of winning.
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.
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.
I guess I should have worded it "no realistic hope of winning the nomination".
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. :)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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'm glad and relieved that Trump lost the election. But this Four Seasons thing sparks joy. I've been laughing about it for days.
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.
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.
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 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."
@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.
"Donald Trump is trying to steal the election? Ho, ho, ho, well 19 years ago some other thing happened."
@Jack. Forget Donald Rumsfeld. Are you not at least a little bit nervous about what Trump might be up to?
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.
This applies no matter who wins the election (it's Trump, BTW).
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
So if your predictions don't come true, will you shut up, man?
Jack has now been banned for the third and final time.What? Really? 8-0
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.
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.
"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 think things are gonna turn nasty in JanuaryCalled it (not that it wasn’t obvious).
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'.
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.
(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)
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 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)
Speaking of which, does anyone here like adventure games? (laugh)Go back where you came from, verbcoin lover!
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.)
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:
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)
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)
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.
It looks like Trump's Twitter account has now been permanently suspended.
True, whenever people try to draw an equivalence between people killing others, and the people protesting the killings..
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?A comedian once said; "It doesn't matter if you f*ck goats ironically, you're still a goatf*ucker".
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.
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.
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?
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
"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.
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Perhaps the nub of our disagreement is that I think endorsing Nazi ideas is wrongdoing?
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.
You can't expect acceptance and forgiveness when all you've done is express the same views in politer and more nuanced terms.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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."
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.)
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.
Who's Blondbeard? ???You don't know him? - Great guy!
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.
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...
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.
Impersonating Arnie, my son added 'And he won't be back.' A bit of good news at last :)
However, it would appear that if this does take place, he will never be able to run for office again. Whew!
I will eat a whole tin of surströmming (and probably die).
If Trump is the leading Republican candidate in 2024, I will eat a whole tin of surströmming (and probably die).
If Trump is the leading Republican candidate in 2024, I will eat a whole tin of surströmming (and probably die).
Please don't take the drastic action of eating a whole tin of Surstromming, if things go horribly wrong.
... I do hope they search the nasty little Trump's pocketsis when he leaves office. :-D
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.
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.
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 :)
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
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.
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.
Maybe, but keep in mind that it doesn't smell like any regular fish.
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.
From what I've seen after that Kevin Sorbo started starring mostly in Evangelical Christian propaganda films made for right-wing Americans.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
While the greatHerculesHerakles votes for the gop, snowflake Zena apparently supports the green party of New Zealand :=
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.