And despite the complaint about Trump losing the popular vote you have to admit that it was really, really close.
Yes, but because she could not win the votes of a group of testaments to the devastating mental effects of inbreeding, she lost.
Which is why Clinton winning the popular vote is only a demonstration of how the Electoral College is massively flawed. I'm curious what the numbers would have looked like if the votes were distributed proportionately to the popular vote as opposed to the all or nothing system that I think I'm safe in saying has proven itself to advantage the Republicans after two Republican presidential victories in my lifetime that lost the popular vote.
It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
She lacked passion is what she did and had the arrogance to assume the cat was in the bag. It was never in the bag.
She lacked passion is what she did and had the arrogance to assume the cat was in the bag. It was never in the bag.
Isn't that almost exactly how she lost the primaries 8 years ago?
DNC tilted the Democratic party's primary for Clinton's favor but looking at her victory margin it was far from the decisive factor. The main factors were that the southern black voters usually (and for very understandable reasons) go for what they see as the safe choice and Sanders started his campaign way too late. There was also the fact that she didn't have any real challengers besides Sanders and even he didn't realize at first that he had a chance to actually pose a challenge for her.
While it's interesting and kind of cathartic to speculate what would have happened if Sanders had jumped in earlier or if a third serious challenger like Biden had been in the race that was not how things went. In the end, the DNC's schemes only hurt both them and Clinton and the bitter irony is that she wouldn't have needed them to win the candidacy.
I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, nor do I think it's a coup but racism certainly played a part. You know what else played a part though? People not voting! Voter turnout was lower than the last two federal US elections. So yeah race-baiting, Comey's fuckery and economic malaise all played a part but the "eh, both sides suck" crowd also owns a big share of reponsibility for this mess.Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Still, Fred (and Niam as well) isn't doing anyone any favors by talking about "coups" and "Nazis" and "incompetent degenerates". I wonder how many people realize that many, many people voted for Trump because he offered a change, and Hillary did not? That many people voted for Trump because Hillary had no platform aside from "don't vote for that other guy"? That a lot of people were concerned with the absolute multitude of baggage she was trailing around behind her? Or that she actively attempted to shut down all other fronts and information in her campaign?
...Nah, it must just be 60 million racists and sexists, right?
It's less of a single smoking gun and more.like the aftermath of a John Woo Mexican standoff gone wrong!
Third parties got, depending on the state, two to five times more votes than the last two elections, so I do think the protest voters were a factor because apparently worthless principle is more important than keeping a fascist out of the White House to the Bernie or Bust crowd.
The problem I'm seeing on the Democratic side is that everyone is trying to find a smoking gun reason why Trump won. This is reductionist and little more than finger pointing. Comey, the fucking e-mails, the "both sides suck" crowd, Clinton being unlikable to a hell of a lot of people (still don't get why, but this is the reality), the media treating Trump with kid gloves, sexism and racism are all factors, but none of them are the smoking gun people want to point to.
I think before we start pointing fingers, we should try to understand why Trump got the support he did. From what I can see, two of the big factors were anti-establishment sentiment and just how divided America has become.That and he promised to bring some measure of prosperity back to the lower classes, especially the rural poor. Now that US manufacturing is uncompetitive, those who live in the country and aren't farmers have basically no opportunities. There's fast food, and that's about it. Between that and the high cost of living in cities making it nearly impossible for those people to simple move there, they're pretty much trapped in poverty with no way out. It used to be the case that small towns would have a factory or a mine or some other large industry that would be its primary source of wealth. Nowadays those have been mostly outsourced, and the government has done nothing to help the those who've lost their livelihoods as a result. Now, Trump comes along and is the first politician, well, ever, to not only not ignore them while throwing what's left of their livelihoods under the bus with trade deals like NAFTA, but actually promise to help them by bringing back America's manufacturing industry, it's no wonder he was so well received. "Make America Great Again" didn't mean "get rid of all the Mexicans and put the darkies back in their place", unlike what some seemed to think, it means "bring back wealth and opportunities for everyone, not just the urban elite", which ironically is what the left is supposed to be about.
Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren.
Art acts as if econmic malaise and racism is an either/or proposition. It isn't, in fact the flames of racism and other bigotry are fanned by economic problems.I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.
Good point.Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren....yes, if there's one thing no one's ever accused the alt right of, it's being a bunch of melodramatic manchildren
Can we be clear who we are talking about when we say "the left"? Because I can certainly see the Democratic hierarchy doing that but I thought we agreed in another thread they weren't really the "left". Identity politics supremos with weaponized offence would probably also be on board but surely if "left wing" has any coherent meaning it should cover an economic dimension.Art acts as if econmic malaise and racism is an either/or proposition. It isn't, in fact the flames of racism and other bigotry are fanned by economic problems.I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.Good point.Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren....yes, if there's one thing no one's ever accused the alt right of, it's being a bunch of melodramatic manchildren
Can we be clear who we are talking about when we say "the left"? Because I can certainly see the Democratic hierarchy doing that but I thought we agreed in another thread they weren't really the "left". Identity politics supremos with weaponized offence would probably also be on board but surely if "left wing" has any coherent meaning it should cover an economic dimension.I meant it as a catch-all term for pretty much everyone opposed to Trump. Obviously it's rather vague and nebulous, but that's generally what happens when you try to put basically every political ideology in the world into one of two categories. I guess we can call them something else, if you'd prefer.
A Democrat doner who thinks he's left wing because he has a gay butler, eco friendly light bulbs in his mansion and a Hispanic maid is no more left wing than Australia's own Malcolm Turnbull who recently rebuked Trump by singing the praises of "fair trade", which is to say, not in the slightest.
As to my comments about them being incompetent degenerates, I don't feel the need to sugarcoat what I feel about these "people". They say they want change, and I say they don't deserve it. They dug this hole with repeatedly voting for people who do nothing but make sure they're miserable. There is no magic Trump can do to reopen those mines and factories. I say let them climb out of it themselves instead of burdening reasonable society.
I saw all I needed to of Trump Supporters - their "Trump that bitch" shirts and their flags and their horrific hairdos and below average intelligence and inability to tell when a joke is on them.
I would rather chat up a chimpanzee than ever have dialogue with the Trump Supporter.
As far as I am concerned, they've done well to earn me ignoring their problems - in fact, if I had the choice to, I'd make their problems worse.
I see a large part of the Republican voters as victims. They live in a bubble where they are convinced that their best bet to improve their lives are the same people who keep screwing them over. Instead of fighting the cultural attitudes that feed ignorant racism in these people the Republican party and their other leaders work to maintain them. Having Democrats and minorities as scapegoats for their problems is an easier way to keep them in line than actually trying to help them.
The kind of racism that is bred by ignorance is a global phenomenon and a part of the human condition, it should be fought by fighting ignorance. This requires both an understanding attitude at their problems and attacking their leadership and the Republican party as an institution. This is not easy to do since the Republicans will do their best to turn any attack on those who deserve it to an attack on the whole group. A good example is how Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment was taken out of context. The mistake she made was apologizing for it - and implicitly admitting fault - instead of doubling down with a wording that isn't so easy to take out of context and make into a sound bite.
Then there is the other kind. The KKK types, neo-nazis and the worst of the alt-right crowd who are so hateful that they are just human scum. Even they aren't all lost cases but as a group the only useful strategical option is to fight them as hard as you can.
...I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
Given that about 9% of the US population voted at all (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0) one half of the Trump vote doesn't put Clinton's guess at the size the alt right at such a huge number-but you don't have to be a huge number to be influential.
(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)
I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.
Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.I can tolerate people being pissed off because they are unemployed because their factory moved to Mexico just fine, it's perfectly justifiable. I don't see why anybody should tolerate people who then go on to blame Mexicans specifically. Shittiness is shittiness.
Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I'm much more worried about the crowd he is surrounding himself with. His own ambition is probably pumping as much money as possible to his companies and fattening his investment portfolio while basking in the limelight as the president. The real damage is going to be done by his cabinet and advisors and of course the Republican Congress and Senate.I'm seeing a lot of worrying comparisons with Bush's relationship with his advisers. Ambitious ideologues who want to steer the country in their chosen direction and a president who can't be bothered with the technical details. That's what happened with Bush/Cheney and it led directly to Iraq and the implosion of that country and neighbouring ISIS.
(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)
When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.
Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I"m... not sure what you are going for. Can you give some examples of characteristically right-wing talking points that are treated by the political left, not just inadequately, but with undeserved intolerance? Preferably from those divides that Trump was able to "exploit to his advantage"?
The alt-right has never been big and that's never been the point of them. Alt right fester-holes like /pol/ are filled with imagery and attitudes designed specifically to chase away outsiders but one thing the alt-right learned from the campaign that must not be named (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6886.0) is that you can appear larger than you actually are and have a real impact (at least in the short term) disproportionate to your actual size merely by strategic trolling.(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)
When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.
I don't deny that the alt-right was significant (if nothing else, in drawing the focus of the left away from things that mattered more). I'm saying they are not a substantial part of Trump voters.
I've heard people say that these results are less a victory for Trump and more a defeat for the political establishment. What say you?I say that the Republican establishment is laughing its arse off. It is a body blow for the Democrat establishment, whether they'll learn any useful lessons from this? Only time will tell.
That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.
Yeah funnily enough. I never hear anyone complain about the conservative media. They just have this stigma that the Jews control everything and that the Jews are liberal.
That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.
I don't know. The DNC emails were less "skeletons in the closet" and more "dirty laundry". Disgusting, depressing, for sure, but there's nothing there that I would call surprising. If anything, the amount and extent of media collusion revealed by the leaks was actually less than I expected.
As for the "liberal mainstream media" phrase... well, its history put aside, the accusation in itself isn't exactly wrong. CNN, NBC, NYT & co do tend to favor views that are seen as "left-wing" in the context of American politics, and while it is true that "reality has a liberal bias" on science-related issues, it cannot explain everything. Coupled with an inherent slant towards the societal (not just political) establishment they are an integral part of, this typically translates into tacit support for the Dems.
What makes it eyeroll-worthy is that the loudest accusations of liberal bias tend to come from people who either trust, work for, or are propped by media outlets on the other side of the fence that have rather flimsier claims of basic trustfulness, let alone objectivity. It is almost never used as a warning to keep a critical and analytical mind, and almost always as an incentive to use the "right" sources of information.
No I'm saying anti semites complain about the liberal media. They tend to think the liberal media is some big Jewish conspiracy.
Interesting: http://qz.com/843972/donald-trump-is-not-even-in-the-white-house-and-reince-preibus-his-chief-of-staff-is-allegedly-already-lying-to-him/
This would explain how Pence came out of nowhere to replace Christie. If true then Trump really is nothing but a puppet for Manafort/Putin.
Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).
Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D
I don't doubt he'll do all of those things, slightly sadder will be the promises he'll break to the rust belt.Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).
Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D
Don't worry. He'll still dismantle the Affordable Care Act, repeal all of Obama's executive orders on things like overtime pay and climate regulations, and give massive tax cuts to the rich.
Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).
Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D
Welp, apparently Bannon is still groovy in Trump's book (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-steve-bannon-alt-right-white-nationalist-disavow) because...I dunno, the peasants aren't ready for "Hail Victory's" in public just yet and Bannon acts just like all the rest of them except for the dressing and Seig Heiling like a National Front reject from Britain in the 1980s part.Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).
Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.? ;D
How is he "disavowing" them when he keeps giving them cushy government jobs?
I bet you are glad that you didn't elect the candidate that couldn't keep national secrets properly stored.SPESHUL PROSECUTA...oh, it's our guy...
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/21/kris-kobach-accidentally-leaked-homeland-security-plans-during-a-photo-op/
...Oops.
I miss the good old days when Neo-Nazis looked like this and didn't have any political support...Pekka Siitoin and his KDP (National Democratic Party) of drunken village idiots... good times.(click to show/hide)
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.
They'll all kiss the ring, as will a good chunk of the Democrats.
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.
They'll all kiss the ring, as will a good chunk of the Democrats.
Assuming that happens, what can be done to counter it? Let's think proactively.
Well, we could try to invoke Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. in particular, the emoulement clause:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html
How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.
If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?
Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?
How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.Where did I say anything about treating them with kid gloves? It pisses me off that we're all expected to do that for religion. I'd never argue we should coddle right wingers in the same manner. In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that "a dialogue" with one's political opponents means a discussion or debate of some kind. You know, which involves at certain points telling them where they're wrong and why they're wrong in as much detail as possible. This of course includes any issues on which you feel they're wrong, racism included.
If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?
Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?
That's true for political parties, for sure but if some Trump supporter jumps into a leftie thread and barfs "suck it byatches, your spook in chief is gone and your byatch is bleeding from her whateva" are said lefties under any obligation to hold back on those hurtful accusations of bigotry?I'm tad surprised that I have to explain this, but okay. Obviously, meaningful discussion is a two way street. It does require the other party to be willing to argue in good faith, and therefore it excludes individuals like internet trolls. Unless you're arguing that every Trump supporter or indeed right winger in general is on the same level as an internet troll, I'm not too sure how this is relevant.
In any case Clinton went to great pains to talk about the Trump voters who weren't Deplorables but merely justifiably worried about their economic and social prospects. Fox News, Brietbart, Heat St et al filtered that into "SNOOTY McSNOOT CALLS Y'ALL DEPLORABLE!!!"Yeah, that's also an important (though somewhat separate) concern.
That said, noting that racism is a factor in politics or noting that a politician is using dog-whistle racist signalling to their constituents is not the same as saying said constituents are just a bunch of racists. Sometimes it's just a fair analysis of what"s going on.Exactly. In fact, my overall point is essentially that the former is far more useful and productive than the latter.
I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.
Well, Trumps a heck of a lot better so far at keeping his promises to his just plain racist constituents than his struggling middle and working class voters.
The Alt-Right's own Bannon cosying up to the prez as chief strategist, Sessions-a guy who's federal judgeship was knocked back because of his less than friendly attitude towards civil rights (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-foreshadows-a-civil-rights-rollback/508172/) is his attorney general pick, his pick for national security adviser Flynn is a conspiracy theorist who thinks fear of Muslims is rational (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-national-security-adviser-has-said-some-incendiary-things-on-the-internet/).
Tax relief for the middle class? Nope (http://www.alternet.org/labor/already-big-gap-between-trumps-promises-middle-class-and-his-policies). Getting coal miners their jobs back? Nope (https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-says-hell-bring-back-jobs-for-coal-miners-but-he-s-just-blowing-smoke-9c9f6e7921ad#.g0gjc7k8b) and Nope (http://grist.org/briefly/mitch-mcconnell-has-already-admitted-gop-promises-to-out-of-work-coal-miners-wont-come-true/). Massive new infrastructure, probably not. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/22/trumps-tax-infrastructure-promises-face-pushback-from-gop-lawmakers.html)
I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.
Jill Stien is working on the money to get a recount started. If this happens, the results of the election might change.
Ironbite-and we won't be in Darkest Timeline.
Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.
Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.
Okay. The story I read about it said she is collecting the money and has been in contact with Podesta about the issue. Then it went on to discuss the deadlines for Clinton to file a complaint in each of the states instead of discussing a possibility of Stein filing it herself. That's just one story, though, so I put the qualification of uncertainty in my post.Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.
Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.
I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.
Okay. The story I read about it said she is collecting the money and has been in contact with Podesta about the issue. Then it went on to discuss the deadlines for Clinton to file a complaint in each of the states instead of discussing a possibility of Stein filing it herself. That's just one story, though, so I put the qualification of uncertainty in my post.Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.
Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.
I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.
Ms. Jones, the film colleague, said that in their years working together, [Steve] Bannon occasionally talked about the genetic superiority of some people and once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.
“I said, ‘That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,’” Ms. Jones recalled. “He said, ‘Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.’ I said, ‘But what about Wendy?’” referring to Mr. Bannon’s executive assistant. “He said, ‘She’s different. She’s family.’”
One thing is certain though. If Trump doesn't become the next elected president there will be blood on the streets as his cultists grab their guns.What's actually certain is that the next president after Trump will have to deal with a system crafted by and for Republicans even if Trump crashes and burns in ignominy and shame.
Because to them it would be the final proof that Hillary is "stealing" the elections.
[Trump]'s draining the swamp and filling it with gold coins so he can swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.
Do you think he'll put a Trump Tower in Washington?
Do you think he'll put a Trump Tower in Washington?
Maybe he'll refuse to move into the White house and instead will rule from the Trump tower?
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
It gets better. He legally can't lease the building if President.
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
So basically a full on depression is incoming, with how pro business Trump is. History always seems to repeat itself.
...But the person chosen to replace Sisneros has to vote for Trump anyway am I right? So this doesn't really change anything, it's just one more person protesting against Trump.
How strange. For all my loathing for him, I must say I admire the sheer gall of that move.
Considering his previous comments about China it should not have been a surprise that he continued making them angry. New cold war to justify more military spending?That resembles something done with forethought. Trump may have rat bastard cunning but this looks more like a screw up borne of the man's spectacular ignorance. First of many I'll wager.
Doesn't she have more of Putin's cash to spend?
Come on lady, go for Medvedev's money if you're that cash strapped!
Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)
Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)
Your proposed law violates basic precepts of federalism, and is unconstitutional.
Yeah, that's why Hitler was also the person of the year. You can't deny that he had a huge impact on the world.
Took a gander at Wikipedia's page on Trump's 2000 presidential bid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000). Makes for interesting reading.
For instance, Trump campaigned for universal health care, named Oprah Winfrey as his ideal running mate and called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler Lover".
I wonder if he really believes in anything, aside from making a quick exit with pockets full of suckers money that is.
Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.
Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.
The problem with assuming the constitution will prevent Trump and the Republican controlled (despite a 9-13% approval rating, just to show how fucked the system is) congress from going full on fascist is that that requires the checks and balances the system was designed to have to be working as intended. As it stands, within four years, there is a VERY good chance, I'd say more likely than not, that the entire federal government and the majority of state level governments will be under Republican control. The checks and balances are gone. We're in for a very rough probably four and likely eight years.
They also legalized torture in USA and kidnapped people without a trial. I find it sad that USA still hasn't done anything about that bit.
Unfortunately, its not quite that simple. Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause. Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.
Unfortunately, its not quite that simple. Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause. Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.
...And once again USA is going to ignore the horrible stuff they did because they don't want to admit that they do horrible stuff.
And saying "but the politicians don't care about it" only matters if you live in a country where the voters don't get to pick the politicians.
I don't, I know it's an outsiders view but the US isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). It's why the Dems ignored working class voters and the Repugs used them with cheerful cynicism.
Right now one oligarchy faction has chosen a dangerous clown as their public face, it doesn't mean they'll let him be their God emperor. He's merely useful to them right now. If he ceases to be useful, like Nixon they'll toss him under the bus.
None of this means that the symptoms of fascism or dictatorship can't take place. Attacks on civil rights, attacks on the press, attacks on voting rights. Police brutality and the use of military tactics to quash dissent. All of this is already happening. It's worth remembering that under the legal framework that Americans still have Japanese internment happened, death squads (the original KKK) happened, Joseph McCarthy's Un American Activities committee happened and yes, government sanction of torture and invasion of sovereign states on the flimsiest of pretexts happened.
What I find interesting about the history of Fascism is that people remember the strongmen themselves but not the oligarchs standing behind them. It's worth remembering that Mussolini's march on Rome was an attempt to quash socialist opposition and a general strike. Strongmen are the cudgel of the ruling classes, they're pulled out when public anger towards them gets particularly acute. That's the time to divide and rule that anger, rally some of it behind them and squish the remainder for "disloyalty", "being unpatriotic" or whatever.
You're assuming Trump is a friend of "the oligarchy". Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's a bit early to judge. He's not even in office yet.
I'm not too worried about that and am more worried about Trump choosing exxon mobil CEO as secretary of state. A man who has no government or foreign policy experience. By drain the swamp I guess Trump meant get rid of anyone that might have an inkling of what they're doing and putting all of his rich friends or people who said nice things about him in power.
Cracking down on fake news is not totalitarian. Censoring people before they have said anything is but if they have repeatedly said something that is illegal or in this case propaganda to fool people then shutting them up is ok. At least that is how Finland treats the freedom of speech and even if the laws in USA are different it still doesn't mean that any deviation from the US way automatically makes you into a Commie-Nazi.
In my opinion, nonsense like that should in all honesty be called the utter tripe it is and forced out of focus by the media.
However it appears Clinton said something you deemed unfavorable, thus in a topic about a potentially very dangerous fascist you felt compelled to bring up Clinton (again) as if what she did was somehow equal to something Trump is out to do.
...Why?
pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy
pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy
You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?
Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/
And get two thirds of both parts of Congress to ratify it, which is borderline impossible. Plus, the people can petition their state governments to pass another Amendment to undo it which, again, would require a two thirds majority in the resultant convention.
Trump won't take over and become our new emperor. That's fearmongering bullshit and not how the god damned government works. He'll be another Bush, Jr. and that's going to be pretty much it.
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/
I usually go with a good rule of thumb: if the website refers to the liberal, currently minority part of the USA as the "Democrat Party", they're probably not a reliable source.
pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy
You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?
Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...
She won the popular vote, yes, but lost states that Democratic candidates hadn't lost in almost thirty years. (Bush Sr. was the last Republican to take Michigan or Pennsylvania, and Reagan was the last one to take Wisconsin.) Her wing of the Democratic Party fell out of touch with what voters in those states think, and they remember all too well that it was Bill Clinton who did NAFTA and Hillary Clinton who called the TPP "the gold standard." As far as many of them are concerned, NAFTA shipped half their jobs out of the country and TPP would do for the other half, and they were not going to vote for someone who supported NAFTA and flip-flopped on the TPP.
She lost the Rust Belt, probably also costing the Democrats the Senate since Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had Republican incumbents, and if the Democratic Party has any designs on getting back into power, they need to ditch the corporatist wing of the party that can't credibly speak to those voters. Hillary Clinton, at this point, is to many voters the personification of that part of the Democratic Party, and as such for the party to have any hope she has to go away. Her clinging onto relevance only hurts the party at this point.
And if you dig into Trump's tweets, as I've had the misfortune of doing, you'll notice that this is a trend. He says one or two things that are stupid, irrelevant, or even offensive (to people who already don't like him), and once that becomes the story of the day, something more important but boring quietly gets announced. It's a strategy dudes use in sitcoms to distract their girlfriends from bad news. ("How was your day, honey?" "Oh, you know, I had a great lunch, fixed Steve's mistakes at work, and, uh, crashedyourcar. You know, same old.") And it's being used by a man who's about to be the goddamn president.
Best summary yet I've heard of Trumps method of hiding consequential news inside a torrent of bullshit. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-trump-plays-media-to-hide-big-news-stories/)QuoteAnd if you dig into Trump's tweets, as I've had the misfortune of doing, you'll notice that this is a trend. He says one or two things that are stupid, irrelevant, or even offensive (to people who already don't like him), and once that becomes the story of the day, something more important but boring quietly gets announced. It's a strategy dudes use in sitcoms to distract their girlfriends from bad news. ("How was your day, honey?" "Oh, you know, I had a great lunch, fixed Steve's mistakes at work, and, uh, crashedyourcar. You know, same old.") And it's being used by a man who's about to be the goddamn president.
Expect when World War Three is announced it will in between ten tweets boasting about his steaks, yelling at the New York Times, scolding the cast of Hamilton and musing about his new golf course!
EDIT: And buried somewhere in the torrent of BS spewing forth from the Trump campaign was the announcement that they'll move the US embassy to "Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem," (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador-pick-anger-arabs-palestinians-jerusalem-a7480041.html). Oh. Fuck.
So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?
Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.
Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.
Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.
In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.
Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.
I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.
In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.
Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).
Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.
Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.
I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.
Such as...
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.
In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis. Preferably a transparent one, too.
Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).
Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.
On the other hand, both her speeches and her website were prepared in advance, whereas interviews and debates have more off-the-cuff dialogue. And since Americans tend to be cynical about politicians (especially those they view as "career" politicians), many of them will place more weight on what is said in a more naturalistic setting.
Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.
I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.
Such as...
Such as the fact that nobody has the right to not be offended.
Donald is typical of "competent politicians"? In what universe? One where Chiang Kai-shek won China?So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?
Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.
Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?
Er, your initial complaint was about the lack of attention paid to things he was saying later in the day.
Do try to keep up.
The point is, if you garner a reputation for flying off the handle and go into full-on progressive SCREEEEEEEEE mode the moment the man says anything, any competent politician is going to structure their messaging so the more unsavoury bits get drowned out by the histrionics you've already had going on since earlier in the day.
If your view is obstructed because of the amount of saliva you've deposited on the bus window, there's a very simple solution...
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."
You know, I knew as soon as I asked the question that I would get some wishiwashy answer like this. Fact of the matter is, nobody is gonna sit here and argue that SJWs totes have great ideas. However, that is not the way that people are talking about political correctness at the moment. At the moment, political correctness is Times' using "person of the year" instead of "man of the year." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xCTQ3brk6w) It is a transgender woman using the women's bathroom. (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html) It is calls to focus less on racial and gender equality in favor of white populism (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.qifm7nf5w). And the people arguing against political correctness are playing a game of three-card monte with the rest of us, where they justify anti-PC beliefs by pointing to extremes before go after the mundane, a mundane which amounts to inclusion and treating non-white men with basic human decency. The irony in all of this is that when you look at the people griping about identity politics, the group that cares most about it happens to be white men.
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."
Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.
It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).
Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.
I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."
Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.
Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.
But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.
It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).
Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.
I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.
You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces
- practitioners of a faith taking issue with a non-practitioner replicating sacred elements of said faith for the sake of putting on a showTake note, people. Culture, and especially religion, are not inherently sacred. If you believe a thing is sacred because your imaginary friend said so, fine, you do you. However, and I cannot stress this enough, you do not have the right to have your beliefs validated by non-believers. Honestly, I'm absolutely fed up with religious entitlement.
- students not wanting to have an arbitrary wait period before they can study poets who aren't white guysIf you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.
- Asian people wanting the Asian food in cafeterias to be more representative of actual Asian foodSee my above rant. You've no right to take away people's access to certain food because it's not made exactly the way you think it should be made. That, again, is one of the most entitled things I've ever heard.
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spacesSee Rav's post. Not being offended is not a basic human right, despite what some may think.
- people with depression, anxiety disorder and/or mental trauma being impeded academically because of these neurological issues and desiring assistance from faculty that would help them work around these impedimentsAnd here's the one halfway valid point. Out of six. So yeah, that's a thing.
If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah. Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally. Inciting people to riot or commit crimes? Again, nothing wrong with punishing that. But, just being a douchebag? And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?" That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain. I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice. Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.
If you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.
Because cultural background, geographic area and identity affect the context and roots, and therefore substance, of the poetry any given poet produces, and so framing a desire for more immediate access to diverse poetry to study as "merely the author's skin colour" is pretty reductive.Okay, that argument has some merit. Too bad it's really not why this is a thing.
“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”Again, the reason why the students want less white authors is simply because they're white. It's less to do with the idea that, say, the students would receive a better and more rounded understanding of poetry by studying authors with more diverse perspectives, and more that idiots are offended because white men.
Quote from: RavIf ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah. Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally. Inciting people to riot or commit crimes? Again, nothing wrong with punishing that. But, just being a douchebag? And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?" That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain. I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice. Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.
I think I've worded myself poorly and communicated things I didn't intend to. I agree that legislating politeness on a broader level is a worrisome concept, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a school to hypothetically go "if you're going to insist on being an egregious douchebag to the students or faculty within our walls, you'll get reprimanded or even penalized in some way". Also, I don't really see anything wrong with a committee that would hypothetically inform people of ways certain language can be hurtful (although giving student committees actual punitive power would, again, be worrisome).
“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”
I can retire to private life with the consciousness that I shall receive from posterity the credit of having been elected to the highest position in the gift of the people, without any of the cares and responsibilities of the office.
At the moment the electors gave in a blood red comet was seen in the sky, the ravens at the tower of London took flight never to be seen again, the sun was covered in darkness and the moon turned red, rains of frogs fell around the world and churchbells around the world started ringing by themselves with an endless "Doom, Doom, Doom".
Altogether better then I thought it would be
So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
It's not why he's here.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)
Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.
Queen, by chance have you been by the FSTDT main page and seen TimetoTurn's Turn to Insanity?
He honestly said everyone should heil him because he is "a man of unparalleled worth" or something.
A worthy replacement for Dynamic Paragon perhaps?
Check him out.The quality of our trolls is going down, all we have are two half hearted shitposters. We need zealous, serious crazy for proper entertainment. At least Ultimate Dynamic Draconic Concerned Citizen Paragon had that.
He's;
1) a TERF / says TERFs have good ideas.
2) praised the work of the Khmer Rouge
3) wants a totalitarian society with himself in charge.
4) said he believes he is going to form the course of the world.
5) called for eugenics programs and believes the mentally ill need to be culled for the sake of his world.
We have two shit posters? Who's the other?One Kommando Peste fan.
But I'm not a fan of Kommando Peste. Or does that mean that I'm the other one?We have two shit posters? Who's the other?One Kommando Peste fan.
You aren't nearly edgy enough. Say something misanthropic or nihilistic from 8chan willyaBut I'm not a fan of Kommando Peste. Or does that mean that I'm the other one?We have two shit posters? Who's the other?One Kommando Peste fan.
You aren't nearly edgy enough. Say something misanthropic or nihilistic from 8chan willyaBut I'm not a fan of Kommando Peste. Or does that mean that I'm the other one?We have two shit posters? Who's the other?One Kommando Peste fan.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
It's not why he's here.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)
Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.
Oddly, my first thought on reading that wasn't Contrarian, but Dynamic Paragon. I kind of miss that guy, but he was a fucking idiot.
Speaking of, I'm still a Dynamic Dragon sock puppet.
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."
Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.
Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.
But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.
There are two problems with what you're saying. The first is in regards to WikiLeaks. What it revealed goes a lot deeper than Donna's email (http://observer.com/2016/11/new-dnc-emails-expose-more-dnc-media-clinton-campaign-collusion/). And the second is that the poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195596/email-dominates-americans-heard-clinton.aspx) only covers what Americans remembered "reading, seeing, or hearing" (their words, not mine), not what the media said. That's an important difference.It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).
Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.
I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.
You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.
You're right, it's not the same. But I never said it was. I'm not talking about people being idiots on social media. If that were all PC culture was, I could live with it. Unfortunately, it's a lot worse than just that. Take a gander at what's happening on college campuses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/07/the-craziest-demands-of-college-kids-in-2016.html).
...The fuck is this?!
http://qz.com/870650/trumps-transition-team-is-rounding-up-names-of-us-state-department-staffers-working-on-gender-equality-issues/
I mean, it was already horrible that Trump is gathering up ahit listlist of government employees who have done work promoting awareness of climate change ...but what the hell is this shit?
And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.
Ironbite-he's going to destroy media relations in this country.
Trump has made it clear that he wants a “telegenic woman” to be his press secretary because “he thinks it would attract viewers and would help inoculate him from the charges of sexism that trailed his presidential campaign.”
And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.
Ironbite-he's going to destroy media relations in this country.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.
Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?
^_^
Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
It's not why he's here.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)
Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.
Way to underscore my point Conty, fling an obviously trite accusation and watch the sparks fly. Saying that the "left" is "in bed" with militant Islamists simply because most lefties aren't openly sectarian towards Muslims is completely daft.
Tell us Contrarian, was it lefties like me or right wing trolls that came up with the "le happy merchant" (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/617/jew_basic.jpg)meme? There are plenty of antisemitic trolls on "your side of the aisle" too.
Or better yet, don't. THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT CONTRARIAN AND HIS BLOVIATING POINTS!!!
Tol, your latter link isn't working. Or a link at all.Fixed, sorry.
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.
And look at 2000 and 2004. It really is more a factor of Obama doing really well among racial minorities than Trump doing well.
Comparing yesterday’s results with 2012, as this Washington Post feature does, shows that Trump actually performed slightly worse among white voters than Mitt Romney did. He did, however, perform better than Romney among blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans, making it more difficult to claim that racial resentment was the dominant factor explaining Trump’s support nationally.
Keep in mind there ARE conservative and reactionary minority people, as David Clark demonstrates.
He even spoke at the RNC.
"This guy [Obama] has continually, continually for eight years rubbed the stain of slavery, rubbed white peoples' nose in the stain of slavery,"...What the fuck does that even mean?
The proposal would bar the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over complaints instead to the House Ethics Committee or refer the matter to an appropriate federal law enforcement agency. The House Ethics Committee would also have the power to stop an investigation at any point and bars the ethics office from making any public statements about any matters or hiring any communications staff.
And the ethics office would no longer be able to accept or investigate any anonymous reports of alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress.
EDIT: Trump actually criticized this move. I am genuinely surprised. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38499284?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook
Anyone that actually pays attention to politics could have told you that "fiscal responsibility" is nothing more than a smokescreen. The problem is that enough of this country believes the lie to allow the Republicans to literally kill people through negligence.
And the Senate just defunded Planned Parenthood. I wish I was surprised.
I'm digging for more, but I may have spoken too soon. Stand by.
Regardless, the fact that the Republicans are more concerned with taking health care away from the poor than doing something actually productive is both depressing and infuriating.
Well in the case of Republicans it's more essential in winning primaries isn't it?Regardless, the fact that the Republicans are more concerned with taking health care away from the poor than doing something actually productive is both depressing and infuriating.
Playing to their base by getting to talk about how they're voting to defund "abortion giant" Planned Parenthood is productive for them. Shoring up your base is essential to winning elections.
This is the Republican congress were talking about as well. The we don't want to spend money on anything congress especially infrastructure. How he's going to get them to approve of a 8 to 12 billion dollar project is beyond me. And his jerk off fantasy of getting Mexico to pay for it? No, you know what? Build the wall using our taxes, do it so you can see how Mexico isn't going to pay for something they never wanted in the first place.
And there's a huge problem with the border wall I don't think Trump's addressed yet: Texas. Treaties forbid both America and Mexico to build anything in the Rio Grande's floodplains, which means he'd have to build much of the wall on what is currently private property. Most of said private property is owned by ranchers, whose livelihoods are tied to the land they own, so it's unlikely they'd sell. He could use eminent domain to get the land, but that would be a very risky move.
Thing is doing such a thing would open his own supporters eyes as to just how bad the GOP really is.
Ironbite-this is not something that'll ever come to fruition in his lifetime.
Thing is doing such a thing would open his own supporters eyes as to just how bad the GOP really is.
For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.
For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.Eh, it proves that omnicidal/suicidal types are relatively rare.
...new polling data suggesting that Trump voters are an incoherent mess when you ask them about regulating the financial industries or corruption in politics, but have a strongly cohesive ideology when it comes to race or gender issues.
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.
...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.Well if the data shows that Republicans who were in fact racist were more in favor of Trump than less racist candidates (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.05027d77b6e6) why not call it by it's name? Oh, I forgot. Pesky facts hurt Repub feels, my bad.
...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.
Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but
And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but whites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.
And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.
There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.Well if the data shows that Republicans who were in fact racist were more in favor of Trump than less racist candidates (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.05027d77b6e6) why not call it by it's name? Oh, I forgot. Pesky facts hurt Repub feels, my bad.
...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
Yeah, economics played a part in this election. But when surveyed Trump voters are united in issues towards race, religion, migration and gender-the "culture war" issues. Not so much economics, to stay mum about this because you might upset some on the fence voters is to encourage willful ignorance.
Brexit was also more about "values" like support of capital punishment and opposing ethnic diversity (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/personal-values-brexit-vote/) than it was about the economy.QuoteThis is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.
How about that?
First borked link fixed. Secondly, here's some data (http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/) showing that conservatives overwhelmingly cluster around a single news source. Guess who?Your first link doesn't seem to be working. And your second link doesn't say that Republicans and Democrats consume different media, just that partisan outlets influence people's votes.Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but whites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.
And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.
There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)
I don't think I ever mentioned anything about 'don't upset the poor Republicans', but hey, thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I'm sure as a liberal Democrat, it's totally fair to basically call me a Republican sympathizer. My point was, that strategy didn't win. And as we've talked about earlier, talking about how "all those Trump voters are just a bunch of racists and sexists" didn't actually sway anyone away from Trump, which is kind of appalling considering how terrible a candidate he was. And yet, we're still hearing about it. I'm no Trump voter, I personally despise the man and think he's going to ruin our country, along with every one of his corporatist, slimy, and yes, bigoted cabinet picks. But let's be real here - the media message over the last year has been "Voting for Trump makes you a racist, a sexist, and a terrible person", and only after November 8th are people starting to realize that no, it doesn't necessarily mean that.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this so I'll just leave this here, I've gotta go get dinner anyway.
Come to think of it, Lex Luthor was elected president at one point. Oh, what I wouldn't give to have Superman show up and stop Trump.Truth and justice? Clearly a libtard. Jumps tall buildings with a single bound? No respect for bewdiful walls!
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.
...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
This. Trying to shame people into turning against Trump only helped him and the GOP. Doubling down will just make things worse.
Measures of racism and sexism (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf), and markers of social status such as a college degree, did a much better job predicting whom voters would support [than economic issues].
My apologies, then. I've gotten so used to people saying "everyone who voted Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic nutjob, feel terrible" that I've developed a knee-jerk reaction. It doesn't help that being painted by the media as a bunch of said deplorable people is actually one of the primary complaints of my Trump-voting friends (as much as I can't stand their votes, they are friends...). Nevertheless, I seem to have misunderstood you.My apologies to you for insinuating that you were trying to protect the feels of Trumpkins, that was shitty of me.
It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.
I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?
It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.
I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?
Makes sense, I've always just assumed Lana was a Trump voter, but that gives more circumstantial evidence.
I'm not about to accuse Lana of being a deep cover Trumpkin, it's entirely possible to be a socially conservative Democrat. I don't know what your motives are, I've no reason to suspect dishonesty and without further information I'm not about to hazard a guess.
That said Lana, pointing out the influence of racism in an election isn't the same as calling people racist. It's also not an either/or choice between racism and the economy. Racist attitudes don't exist in a vacuum, support for France's National Front exist in areas where unemployment is high (http://www.politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5628/Stephan_Thesis.pdf) and of course the Nazis and other Fascist groups arose in the context of the Great Depression. To say that racism is a major factor in Trump's success is not the same as saying all his supporters are a bunch of racists.
presumably flamboyant and bizarre assassins, because life is apparently genre shifted to a really, really weird Bond story.
Tinkle, tinkle, little czar. Putin put you where you are. (https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/819003453057990656)
Do you think the KGB is going to pull out the umbrella that shoots poison darts from storage just for this?
I guess your quoting the Daily Bell who are known for promoting belief in "cultural Marxism" (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/nelson-hultberg-cultural-marxism-the-corruption-of-america/) seems a tad socially conservative, especially when there are less long winded explanations (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrapping) that don't involve pegging responsibility on the phenomenon on to one particular faction or persuasion.
Regardless your belief that the effect of racism in the election was exaggerated should be coupled with reasons why. The fact that more minorities voted for Trump than Romney is not sufficient. It doesn't actually show that this invalidates the theory that racism played a major role in Trump's election.
...This story has continued escalating: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5876de6be4b0f8a7254484d6?timestamp=1484189321777
Now the British spy who was the source behind "Trump paid to be peed on by Russian prostitutes" story has fled his home and is hiding from assassins?
During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan". The papers were all blank.
Ironbite-WE'RE ALL GONNA FUCKING DIE!
During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan". The papers were all blank.
Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c
FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.
Anyone else have him randomly PM them? Apparently because im not a fan of BLM he thinks im "like the type of guy I can get along with.". LOL. Im not a right wing nut job like him. Might like BLM or third wave feminism, but im still a a million miles away from him.
What makes you think I'm a "right-wing nutjob?"
I can't speak for IanC, but your generally anti-feminist, anti-PC attitude, complete with references to "cultural Marxism" is a dead ringer for "right-wing nutjob". You predictably take up the cause of the right-wing outrage-of-the-week (remember Vox Day tampering with the Hugos?) and FQA always pummels you for it. You've got nothing else.
Nothing except 8-year-olds, dude.
Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. This is why even though Ironchew is an edgelord, I enjoy him. Because he gots smarts.
(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89879/width926/image-20150728-7665-1iu4wk1.jpg)Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c
FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.
Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).
Anyone else have him randomly PM them? Apparently because im not a fan of BLM he thinks im "like the type of guy I can get along with.". LOL. Im not a right wing nut job like him. Might like BLM or third wave feminism, but im still a a million miles away from him.
What makes you think I'm a "right-wing nutjob?"
I can't speak for IanC, but your generally anti-feminist, anti-PC attitude, complete with references to "cultural Marxism" is a dead ringer for "right-wing nutjob". You predictably take up the cause of the right-wing outrage-of-the-week (remember Vox Day tampering with the Hugos?) and FQA always pummels you for it. You've got nothing else.
Nothing except 8-year-olds, dude.
Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. This is why even though Ironchew is an edgelord, I enjoy him. Because he gots smarts.
Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?
(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89879/width926/image-20150728-7665-1iu4wk1.jpg)Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c
FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.
Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).
Uncle:Yes Comrades, we will bring about a workers revolt in the west by dividing the left into competing tribes that are happy so long as they have enough people from marginalized grouplets in executive level jobs.
Igor:Oh fuck, he's been at the Stolichnaya again...
Uncle:: Igor for the gulag, MORE STOLICHNAYA FOR EVERYBODIES!!!
Igor *as trapdoor opens beneath his feet*:Aiiieeeeeeeee...
Oh FFS Lana, Cultural Marxism is a theory where theJoosFrankfurt School conspired to destroy western civilization from within, because reasons. That is a conspiracy theory from it's foundation stone up.
As far as the United States is concerned historically the greatest proponents of identity politics were Democrats pre Nixon and Republicans post and none of the people promoting the identity politics I'm referring to were remotely Marxist.
Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.
a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.
b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.
Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?
Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.
a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.
b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.
Sometimes, when people complain about “cultural Marxism”, their emphasis seems to be on something more specific. They are thinking, perhaps, of a left-wing variety of cultural authoritarianism: a tendency to criticize movies, video games, and other cultural products in a very harsh way that implies a need for government censorship. Short of that, it may at least imply the need for aggressive social policing and an environment of public shaming.
Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?
Yeah I'm thinking this too. Lana's posting about the same topics, in the same style, with the same phrases and getting into the same fights as Dynamic Paragon.
Look, Lana if you aren't Paragon I apologize. Dynamic Dragon was a full of himself asshole who got banned for making sockpuppets but came back with a sockpuppet called Ultimate Paragon, where got even worse become devote gamergater and even defending childporn on 8chan because free speech before getting banned again. He had a very similar posting style on a lot of the same topic as you. If I've misread you and you are a different person I am sorry for the mistake but I hope you understand the concern over not wanting a childporn defender back.
a) It's been largely drowned out in all the misuse, but people still do talk about Cultural Marxism in the original sense. For example, this book (https://books.google.com/books?id=Pa3DCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+critical+turn+in+education&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi989a_k8PRAhWIlxoKHaa8AUkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=the%20critical%20turn%20in%20education&f=false) was published just last year.
b) That's not necessarily the case. There are people who use it to describe a particular flavor of left-wing authoritarianism, as my article says:
Current left-wing activism can, indeed, display hyperbolic, philistine, and authoritarian tendencies, but these have little to do with any influence from Marx, Soviet totalitarianism, or the work of the Frankfurt School. They have more, I suspect, to do with tendencies toward moral and political purity in almost any movement that seeks social change.
This was the purpose of the ideology of Cultural Marxism — to root out the fundamentals of Judeo-Christian civilization and the splendid Camelot of Freedom it had created in America from 1776 to 1913. What is horrifying is that it has been triumphant. Marx has not buried us in an economic sense as Khrushchev boasted he would; but Marx has buried us in a cultural sense as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs planned over 80 years ago. James Jaeger's film demonstrates this in lucid fashion that is at once fascinating and abhorrent.
“In January Trump will start governing and will have to make compromises. Even small ones will trigger squabbles between the ‘alt-right’. ‘Trump betrayed us.’ ‘No, you’re betraying us for saying Trump betrayed us.’ And so on. The alt-right’s appearance of influence will diminish more and more as they start to fight amongst themselves.”
In an email interview Peter Brimelow, founder of the webzine Vdare.com, which alleges Mexican plots to remake the US, said Trump’s failure to deliver “important bones” could trigger a backlash. “I think the right of the right is absolutely prepared to revolt. It’s what they do.”
There is, however, a catch: Weber, Taylor and Brimelow – all classified as “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center – said Trump’s victory energised the far-right and that the movement can grow with or without White House help.
And his lawyer says outright that the whole thing happened in front of witnesses, which is why it can't be sexual assault! Von Keyserling would never sexually assault someone in front of witnesses!Reminds me of something... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic)
And you expect us to believe that the Alt-Right may be referring to the several decades old political thingy when they say that the Cultural Marxists are trying to destroy western countries and flood them with Muslims? Because if that's not what you are saying then I don't get how it is relevant to this discussion.
I think one side fuels the other side. George w bush made way for the rise of Obama. Fears of Obama created the tea party and then the alt right. 4 to 8 years of Trump, deregulation, mass privatization, corporate abuse and a rising interest in Bernie sanders might fuel a socialist movement. Trump voters like Obama voters will most likely increasingly feel disenfranchised as they feel their candidate didn't really help them much and most likely won't turn out to vote next time. It happens time and time again.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/conn-republican-arrested-for-grabbing-womans-genitals-his-lawyer-says-it-was-a-playful-gesture/
a) Yet more evidence that people are starting to think that they can all act like Trump now with no repercussions.
b) It's not really "your word against mine" if you do it on camera and using the defense "he would never do such a thing" is likewise kinda futile against video evidence.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/conn-republican-arrested-for-grabbing-womans-genitals-his-lawyer-says-it-was-a-playful-gesture/
a) Yet more evidence that people are starting to think that they can all act like Trump now with no repercussions.
b) It's not really "your word against mine" if you do it on camera and using the defense "he would never do such a thing" is likewise kinda futile against video evidence.
What a revolting excuse for a human being. And if he thinks anybody will buy this, he's delusional.
We Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. “He has presented his positions once more. They have been known for a while. My positions are also known.”
How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?
Merkal and Hollande aren't betting on Trump helping them or the EU. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/16/europes-fate-is-in-our-hands-angela-merkels-defiant-reply-to-trump)QuoteWe Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. “He has presented his positions once more. They have been known for a while. My positions are also known.”
Translation, we have Russian puppets on both sides of our borders now. If Germany and France go for ultra nationalist governments I've no doubt Putin will start moving his sphere of influence aggressively westwards.
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.
Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?
Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.
Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.
Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?
Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.
Again we are reducing the election to economic issues OR racism. It was economic issues AND racism. Racism may not have been the tipping point for Trump's support and you could reasonably argue that it wasn't.
The Democrats failure to reach out to previously loyal voters who voted for Obama but don't live in the big cities or didn't see the material benefits of his administration. His siding with the banks instead of the people who were screwed by them. Clinton's insistence that America was already great when for many Americans it wasn't. Sure as eggs are eggs all that was important.
But not calling a fair chunk of Trump's supporters racist is counterfactual (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg), and the notion of not calling people what they are because you might upset their feelings is like a caricature of "the PC crowd"
EDIT: "The Guardian" didn't admit that. It wasn't an editorial, it was an opinion piece. In others racism was pegged as a contributing factor, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/how-did-donald-trump-win-analysis)
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.
Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.
Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.
And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.
Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.
There's nobody named Paragon here.
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.
It's a false equivelance, one has statistics to back up the claim the other was pulled out of thin air. 58% of white voters across all demographics, 67% of whites without a college degree and 53% of males across all demographics voted for Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0) if gang membership is anything to go by black men aren't even the largest group in gangs. (https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics) Not that this is topical as your other claim is just a strawman.White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.
What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.
There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?
Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.
Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:QuoteAmong Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.
Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.
And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.
Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?
If it is and Queen is saying she hates men, whites and non college graduates for being who they are she's free to contradict me on this point.
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.
Okay Paragon I'm curious. Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.
There's nobody named Paragon here.
Dude I know it's you okay. You're using the same talking points almost word for word. You should have at least tried to throw people off your sent by saying things you wouldn't have as Paragon, like I dunno, pretend you're in love with Zoe Quinn or something.
But nice dodge, you avoided the question. Again can you show me anyone outside the alt-right gasthekikesracewarnow crowd who uses the term Cultural Marxist unironically?
QuoteWhy should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17owbiibrj1i2jpg/original.jpg)
Nobody is saying that white men who didn't vote for Trump are to blame. The fact remains that the majority did and that racism was a major factor.
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:QuoteBlack men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.
And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.
There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.
No you're just intentionally being dense to misinterpret what I am saying. I said, as a group. As in, as a group, white men skewed Trump, and if they did not skew for Trump to such a degree, he wouldn't be president. That is not to say all white men, because as I said, statistics (and the website I linked to used percentages instead of blanket statements). This is why we already know you're paragon.
What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.
There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?
Shut up Paragon and read your links. You focus on raw numbers, but your link states that poverty rates among the general population is 14.3%, whites (non-hispanic) have a poverty rate of 9.9%, and blacks have a poverty rate of 25.8%. And to put a point on this, while we cannot say for certain that a random white person has it better than a random black person, we can say that--in the aggregate--that white people do have it better (based on the fact that only 1/10, and not 1/4 of them, live in poverty). These statistics that you provided us prove that.
Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.
Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:QuoteAmong Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.
Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.
Thank you for explaining that nuance, but it doesn't undercut my previous point.... We are not talking about those who did not support Trump, but those who did support Trump. So, whether this made some white people less likely to vote for Trump is irrelevant because the crux of the study is to show that race and racial fears played a role for many Trump voters.
And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.
Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?
Nope, October 25-31, 2016 (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf). Otherwise known as 5 months after the last competitive Republican Primary.
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"
Samantha Bee
Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4Quote"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"
Samantha Bee
Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.
And how do you define "bullying" and "stupid reasons"?
And what kind of behaviour, in your eyes, constitutes "trying to play the role of the fiction police"?
And how do you personally define an "SJW" (and, possibly to pre-empt you, "extremism" in the context of the social left)? These terms have been used as dogwhistles for any vehement and insufficiently submissive leftist sentiment or critical sociological analysis of fiction and its impact, so you'll understand if I'm raising an eyebrow at the terminology when it's unelaborated on. (And, actually, now that I'm on the subject, I still hold to the belief that neither Hindus disliking their religion's holy chants to be performed as entertainment by non-Hindus nor expanding already-extant codes of conduct on campus to include "don't be bigoted" count as "political correctness gone mad" in and of themselves.)
Furthermore, pretty much none of this has any relevance to Trump's presidency. Unless I'm incorrect, Trump's campaign devoted exactly zero time to any particular male positivity or explicit affirming message to whites specifically (and no, that doesn't mean he's not racist), and I'll bet my testicles it didn't touch on current trends in art critique. If someone's response to being told white privilege exists is to flock a guy whose mission statement contains "Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists", then it's fair to assume they already heard the siren call of racialist ideology.
And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office. That's not how voting works. When you put in the Trump you think will create jobs despite his several bankruptcies, you also put in the Trump who called Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists live and wanted to register and round up Muslims. Voters don't magically take on the character flaws of the candidates they support, but if you give matches to the KKK so they can burn crosses, you don't magically become uncomplicit in racist terrorism just because you were doing to be a good neighbour or whatever.
But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4Quote"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"
Samantha Bee
Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.
To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.
There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.
As a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules against bigotry. But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4Quote"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"
Samantha Bee
Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.
I fear the point was missed here. No less a personage than Barack Obama has asked Muslims to take responsibility for their worst members (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/responsibility-responsible-violence/). Black people are frequently (http://ijr.com/2014/11/209189-4-take-personal-responsi-damnbility-one-mans-straight-talk-black-community-goes-viral/) tasked (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4gmeoo/cmv_black_people_need_to_begin_accepting_their/) with (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/its-time-for-black-america-to-blame-black-america/) taking (http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-pastor-tells-blacks-to-stop-blaming-whites-for-all-of-their-problems)responsibility for the worst members of their community and I don't hear you complaining. I believe Sam was just saying, you know - what's good for the goose...
To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.
There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.
Trouble is, much like "cultural Marxism" in common usage it's come to mean something different. Now it's just a lazy way of saying do-gooder who gives a crap about other people.
Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.Yeah, I'm (https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/5ogdnt/theyre_going_to_bring_cameras_so_this_should_be/) sure (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3vez1u/what_is_the_proper_use_of_the_term_sjw/).
The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.Not everyone using the word "problematic" is calling for stuff to be banned. Yes Jack Thompson and BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) did want to ban stuff, but I don't think they ever used the word "problematic".
Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.Yeah, I'm (https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/5ogdnt/theyre_going_to_bring_cameras_so_this_should_be/) sure (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3vez1u/what_is_the_proper_use_of_the_term_sjw/).
Also, I know-not all white people yadda yadda. It's still a fact that mostly white people elected Trump (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13571676/trump-win-racism-power) and over 40% of those white people are racist as balls (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg). Those are factual statements, not a plot to make white people feel bad man.
The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.Not everyone using the word "problematic" is calling for stuff to be banned. Yes Jack Thompson and BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) did want to ban stuff, but I don't think they ever used the word "problematic".
I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller. feel bad man.
I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws.They just give them their blessing.
They show folks using SJW are bottom feeding reptiles who probably didn't start tossing it about because someone tried to "reclaim" the term unironically. Frankly it proves as much as your assertion that it might have been SJWs trying to reclaim SJWness by taking the acronym back.
I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller. feel bad man.
Well that's a change of tune, see I distinctly recall you saying that calling them racist at all was unfair.I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws.They just give them their blessing.
America has voted already, well-at least the electoral college has voted in it's stead. Trump supporters are likely to get just as pissed at a nuanced statement saying that a percentage of them are racist as a flat out statement calling them all racist. After all, Hillary's "deplorables" comment made clear that she wasn't talking about every single Trump supporter or calling them all racist and look how that went over. We can discuss it or not, it's relevant to the topic but there's no point on holding back because you might piss off a Trump supporter.
Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?
Grand, good. Glad we all agree.Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?
I don't think so. The point has been that after everything Trump has said and his team has done everyone who voted him has lost any excuse to claim that they didn't know that Trump's administration is going to be racist and because of that they were complicit in helping racists rise to power.
Someone in particular mentioned that they will now refer to Trump voters as supporting racism because that is what they did even if they just said that they liked his hair or business expertise or whatever.
“Hahahahaha, I was just asked by a booking agent if I would consider djing at one of the inaugural balls for #trump ... Hahahahaha, wait, Hahahaha, really? I guess I’d DJ at an inaugural ball if as payment #trump released his tax returns. Also I would probably play public enemy and Stockhausen remixes to entertain the republicans. I’m still laughing. Hahahaha. So #trump what do you think, I DJ for you and you release your tax returns?”
Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?
And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office.
Also-the ultimate responsibility for the perversion of the term SJW rests on the same people who "perverted" your venerable academic term "Cultural Marxism". Take it up with them.
Social justice extremism: reclaiming an insult used towards people for being highly socially leftist as a positive term. Verily she wants to instate a leftist tyranny where cishets are put to the sword. And surely "shaming critics" is the only reason anyone could have for reclaiming an insultive term, which is why people who self-identify as "queer" are doing it just to oppress the heteros. /s
Seriously though, your premise of "people who want to reclaim SJW are the real reason SJW is so misused" is easily rejectable because 1) you base it on one (1) person allegedly reclaiming "social justice warrior" to "make the critics look bad" 2) you don't even give a proper source of this heinous act of cisheterophobic propaganda. I googled "Laurie Penny SJW" and only got sources like Ralph Retort and Roosh V's website, which 1) are biased to the extreme 2) I will not be dignifying with traffic.
But this isn't about that, my mistake. This is about how calling supporters of racists being president racist people, because they do actively racist things, apparently became an unreasonable thing to say at some point? Because something something Trump did marginally better with latinos than some other cockhole?
I'm a very empirical person, so I generally don't trust such claims unless I have hard evidence.
I'm a very empirical person, so I generally don't trust such claims unless I have hard evidence.
Remember that time I posted statistics and you were all "well, white people and fee fees." Yeah, I don't even need to call up Maury to tell that this quote is a lie.
Oh FFS of course some people unironically call themselves Social Justice Warrior, because it's unique among insults in that it combines three awesome things into an awesome-voltron. Combining the sheer over the top-ness with bitter fuck-you snark is what makes the insult work. Reclaiming it is simply boomeranging that snark in the other direction. That doesn't make Lurie Penny responsible for the terms popularity. It was a popular diss that she was reacting to, not the other way around.
Also, in my country we call Pauline Hanson's voters responsible for racism because even if you are the one token Asian that she apeared in the photo op with you'd have to be Blind Freddy not to know she's racist as fuck. Trump is like Hanson on crack and anybody alive on the planet not locked in a cell in supermax or in a coma since maybe the 1980s knows this!
But Lana I digress, because we all have in this very thread. Can we maybe start a new one to discuss this semantic argument about the origins of SJW-ness and cultural Marxism? Because here, now un this thread it's just an annoying derail.
Can we get back to Donald fucking Trump please?
So long as Pence goes with him. Trump will be bad, but Pence is demonstrably worse.
The difference between Trump and Pence is that while Pence is horrible, he at least would have some respect for the traditions and conventions of government. Trump doesn't.For Trump it's all about his ego, an impeachment-or for that matter an electoral loss is something he would perceive as an attack on his character and therefore his ego.
I think it was Queen who mentioned that she doesn't trust that Trump would hand over power peacefully if he loses in 2020 or once he can't run again in 2024. Pence, I think, would.
(Of course, that raises the question of whether Trump would go peaceably if he were impeached.)
The difference between Trump and Pence is that while Pence is horrible, he at least would have some respect for the traditions and conventions of government. Trump doesn't.For Trump it's all about his ego, an impeachment-or for that matter an electoral loss is something he would perceive as an attack on his character and therefore his ego.
I think it was Queen who mentioned that she doesn't trust that Trump would hand over power peacefully if he loses in 2020 or once he can't run again in 2024. Pence, I think, would.
(Of course, that raises the question of whether Trump would go peaceably if he were impeached.)
We all know already he wouldn't have accepted this elections outcome unless he had won, we also know he answers each and every attack on his character with petty rage. That's your answer.
Note to Lana, this is not saying that every single member of the GOP is a racist 'kay*-nor every member of the inauguration committee nor every on the fence voter we've never met. Their feels are safe with me.
*Steve over there in the corner is alright, he's a Rand acolyte. He just wants to kill the poor regardless of race, creed or colour.
Woooooooooooooooow. Kayne West.You can be fuckin' president elect and do that.
Ironbite-well makes sense. He is in the middle of a mental breakdown.
http://usuncut.com/news/republicans-kill-protesters/
Protest while you still can. After this law passes the authorities are allowed to shoot any groups of 10 or more people if theyhave the wrong skin colourare blocking the road or sidewalk.
http://usuncut.com/news/republicans-kill-protesters/
Protest while you still can. After this law passes the authorities are allowed to shoot any groups of 10 or more people if theyhave the wrong skin colourare blocking the road or sidewalk.
One, laughably unconstitutional. Two, if it happens...well, you can't act surprised when they start shooting back, or devolving into a riot more readily.
I've heard that Trump's team is blaming the weather for shit turnout. Because apparently 58 degrees and light rain is a much bigger obstacle than the below freezing temperatures Obama had.
I should also point out that the (early) estimates are between 10,000 and 250,000. For perspective, Obama's 2013 inauguration had over a million people, while his 2009 inauguration reached over 1.8 million people.
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
But can the voters call an election and boot him out?
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
But can the voters call an election and boot him out?
No.
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).
Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
But can the voters call an election and boot him out?
No.
Yeah, that whole "democracy" thing? Basically a facade.
What are the odds of him ragequitting?
GOP will impeach him sooner just to score points with the electorate and not get squished in the mid-terms.Not before the damage is done.
Donald Trump's approval rating according to a recent Quinnipiac poll: 37%.I thought we learned from the election itself that the polls are just flat out wrong.
George W. Bush's approval rating after Hurricane Katrina: 43%.
Donald Trump's approval rating according to a recent Quinnipiac poll: 37%.I thought we learned from the election itself that the polls are just flat out wrong.
George W. Bush's approval rating after Hurricane Katrina: 43%.
Trump claims he had a million and a half people at his inauguration in a petty attempt to discredit a protest drawing at least two times the crowd he had. This is, quite obviously, a bold faced lie.Uh huh. (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/)
Reich asked his friend what the GOP will do now that Trump is president.
“They’ll play along for a while,” the unidentified friend said. “They’ll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want to take credit for everything.”
Asked what happens then, the Reich’s friend laughed and said, ‘They like [Vice President] Pence.” “Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind,” he explained. “So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he will …”
“They impeach him?” Reich asked. “You bet. They pull the trigger,” was the reply (http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/theyll-pull-the-trigger-robert-reich-explains-how-the-gop-is-playing-trump-till-they-can-dump-him/)
I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.
I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.This is why. (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/koch-brothers-are-smiling-white-house-will-be-packed-some-their-most-loyal-servants)
I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump
more people went to dashcon than the amount of people who went to trump’s inauguration
I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)
To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.
" Trump regurgitated parts of his stump speech about how the United States “should have kept the oil” after invading Iraq. “Maybe we’ll have another chance,”
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)
To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.
Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)
To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.
Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.
I doubt Trump will bring this back, while he flipped flopped on this issue, and every other that doesn't center around his giant hands/penis, his actions are taking us down the protectionist route... And China is laughing so hard at us right now. With America backing out, now they are the dominant economy to bring countries to the table and create free trade deals, deals which China--and not the United States--gets to write. Fact is, the TPP was drafted to circumvent China's currency manipulation and increase American influence in South Asian nations. That is why China is not a signatory.
And then with Canada and Mexico... I guess the only silver lining is that a trade war is better than an actual war. But then Tol posted, so fuck.
More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and quarter-million-dollar fine. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.
Speaking of repression. (http://www.alternet.org/trumps-america-felony-riot-charges-against-inauguration-protesters-signal-dangerous-wave-repression)QuoteMore than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and quarter-million-dollar fine. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC? Seriously, how do you tell? The place is a shithole.
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC? Seriously, how do you tell? The place is a shithole.
Still better than Miami.
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC? Seriously, how do you tell? The place is a shithole.
Still better than Miami.
All of which are several orders of magnitude better than Mogadishu.
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC? Seriously, how do you tell? The place is a shithole.
Still better than Miami.
All of which are several orders of magnitude better than Mogadishu.
And even that is better than the arid wasteland that is Topeka.
HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN HOW HOT IT IS THERE!?
Oh wow...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193
USA is leaving UN if this passes.
Oh wow...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193
USA is leaving UN if this passes.
So, basically, the Republican Party has metamorphosed into the Pigmask Army, and Trump is basically a seventy year old Porky Minch.
It fits; wanting to cause the apocalypse, no regard for anyone but themselves, corrupting people into giving them more power...
Hilariously, down under our own conservative government is futilely begging Trump to keep the TPP (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/transpacific-partnership-dead-before-trump-even-takes-office-20161113-gso9kn.html) while the opposition asks why they're even bothering. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/01/21/govt-must-look-tpp-alternatives-alp)
Oh wow...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193
USA is leaving UN if this passes.
Apparently, this bill has been proposed at every Congress session for the past 20 years, but never even made it past the committee. I'm pretty sure leaving the UN was not part of the Republicans' platform, and neither did Trump campaign for it.
Not saying that it can't eventually happen if They the People drag their own asses into an impossible situation, but the timing of this proposal is basically irrelevant to how it might eventually come to happen.So, basically, the Republican Party has metamorphosed into the Pigmask Army, and Trump is basically a seventy year old Porky Minch.
It fits; wanting to cause the apocalypse, no regard for anyone but themselves, corrupting people into giving them more power...
Dear Leader is a narcissistic yet unbelievably insecure, elderly manchild who loves naming things after himself. Accordingly, his seat of power is on top of a massive tower that bears his name. He wants the entire world to love him, admire him, practically worship him, and will seek to punish anyone who doesn't. He seized power by exploiting people's complacency, ignorance and apathy, but to him it was all just a game. He embodies the decay of modern Western society, of capitalism, of our concept of freedom ; even beyond that, he represents the timeless human vices that all those troubles stem from, the reasons there was never a time or place where "society", capitalism or freedom were ever truly "done right".
So for the sake of giving the finger to Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement (which, as I have said so many times, is what the Republicans had been proposing for decades) and giving a massive tax cut to the 400 richest families in the US, the Republican Party is willing to kill well over forty thousand people per year.Hell, they've been more than prepared to kill foreign lives for politics. So have the blue dogs. Not just foreign lives, how many are unnecessarily killed because of "tough on crime" policing or the war on drugs?
Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY)."Opposition"? Surely you jest!
Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY)."Opposition"? Surely you jest!
Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
The new test of loyalty will apparently be celebrating Trump's Inauguration Day (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/01/23/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion-for-what/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29) as a National Day of Patriotic Devotion (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01798/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion).Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY)."Opposition"? Surely you jest!
Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
They're taking the "Loyal" part of "Loyal Opposition" too literally.
The new test of loyalty will apparently be celebrating Trump's Inauguration Day (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/01/23/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion-for-what/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29) as a National Day of Patriotic Devotion (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01798/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion).
If there is a human being in the history of ever with a larger and more fragile ego, let me know.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315963-gop-pans-democrats-1-trillion-infrastructure-package
You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.
Well, the Democrats proposed doing just that.
And the GOP shot it down.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315963-gop-pans-democrats-1-trillion-infrastructure-package
You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.
Well, the Democrats proposed doing just that.
And the GOP shot it down.
I hope they don't do that infrastructure plan. Large infrastructure rebuilding projects should be used in a Keynesian sense. That is, when there is a recession and high unemployment, where the infrastructure project is a means of spending to modernize the economy while allowing the government to spend its way out of said recession. An infrastructure project now, when unemployment is 4.7% pushes us dangerously close to full employment, meaning that inflation is on the horizon. Further, at a time like this, where wages are starting to recover, where unemployment is low, and where the recession is over, it's just a giant money giveaway to large industries that work in machinery and government contractors. While this is true even in times of recession, the creation of jobs and government stimulus make up for this in the long term. However, I don't believe Trump's motive for an infrastructure plan is to help the economy or create jobs, but to stimulate a sector of the economy that he likely owns substantial stock in. I have no evidence for this belief, but come on, it's Donald Trump.
Enrique Peña Nieto cancelled a meeting with Donald Trump and the White House retaliated by suggesting a new 20% tax on imports from its southern neighbour to finance the construction of a border wall.
If these are true I don't think Trump will last 8 years...
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356840/large/WHL15.jpg?1485420796)
I want to point out, so it's clear, that we have no way of knowing if those tweets are actually true. That said, I choose to believe that they are, in the lack of any evidence to the contrary.
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."To be fair, the other side does it too. People seem to be far less critical of the TPP than they once were now that Trump has pulled America out of it.
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."To be fair, the other side does it too. People seem to be far less critical of the TPP than they once were now that Trump has pulled America out of it.
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."To be fair, the other side does it too. People seem to be far less critical of the TPP than they once were now that Trump has pulled America out of it.
Yeah. For my money that's the one good thing Trump has done so far.
So question, why does Donald Trump lie so constantly, so obviously, about such trivial matters?There's always Henry Kissinger's madman theory.
Is it because:
a) he's just that fragile and stupid?
Or as economist Tyler Cowen argues here http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/26/14386068/why-does-trump-lie
b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?
So question, why does Donald Trump lie so constantly, so obviously, about such trivial matters?
Is it because:
a) he's just that fragile and stupid?
Or as economist Tyler Cowen argues here http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/26/14386068/why-does-trump-lie
b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.
I'm "a white guy on the outside" and I'm fucking terrified at how he's telling the environment to go fuck itself.
I'm a white guy on the inside and we're probably gonna have an ISIS attack on US soil that he'll do nothing about and WHOOPS THERE GOES THE BILL OF FUCKING RIGHTS!
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.
I'm "a white guy on the outside" and I'm fucking terrified at how he's telling the environment to go fuck itself.
That's absolutely fair.
Aren't we all?
Apparently not Conty.
Apparently not Conty.
He's of the same brand as Trump, so that is only logical.
Entertainment-wise my horror scenario was this dude turning into a boring sensible politician who'd just spent the campaign spouting fun-but-implausible things to energise the voter base only to drop them after inauguration day.Yes, the hilarity if you have an Arab name of never being able to go on holiday or visit relatives. I'm sure they see the joke.
But early indicators are looking like he's actually going to DO some of them. This is going to be HILARIOUS.
One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.
One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.
Totally a trustworthy source and not the demented shrieking of someone who doesn't understand how governments work.
Why? He just wants to bloviate. Bloviating only requires alternative facts, reading real ones is for libtards!One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.
Totally a trustworthy source and not the demented shrieking of someone who doesn't understand how governments work.
For someone who claims to be British, you really don't comprehend the English written word very well do you? Pyro is hardly citing his/her relative as a reliable source. The statement is simply the repetition of conjecture. By definition not said to be a reliable source.
For fuck's sake, at least make an attempt at reading. I realise it's hard to focus given your vigorous self abuse but maybe take a breather before typing.
Cernovich is a huge cuck. Mike Cernovich is a massive cuck.
I am alt-right. I have always been alt-right. I have never said I'm not alt-right, unlike Mike and Paul Joseph Watson and Milo and these other cucks.
4Channers, Goobergaters and neo-Nazis can't make a coherent team and they are either fighting over which one of them is the coolest or whether or not they should be closeted Nazis or in full-Nazi mode.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadist-groups-hail-trumps-travel-ban-as-a-victory/2017/01/29/50908986-e66d-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_jihadist-groups-635pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4be33b9564d1
You know who loves the Muslim ban? ISIS.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/trumps-education-secretary-pick-plagiarized-her-senate-questionnaire-responses-report/
Somebody please tell me that Rawstory is one of the Onion-type fake news sites because this is too cliche to be real. The new head of the department of education copied her answers off of net.
“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”
A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future.
(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)Quote“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”
Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.
The state visit with Teresa May seemed to go well enough. I'm glad to see Sir Winston's bust back on display after Obama summarily removed it from sight (incidentally, he also has a place of honor on the main floor of the Pentagon). I'm hopeful for a US/UK trade deal.
The EO on refugees wasn't unconstitutional or illegal (despite some of the headlines) but the internal comms weren't there and that caused the implementation to be bungled. Unnecessary error, but fixable, and on the whole not really that big a deal.
He made a killer SCOUTS nomination. That means a lot.
Iran is the one starting shit with the Iran situation, not Trump. Remember, he made his bones as a counter-puncher.
On the other side of the ledger, what's with the dust-up with Australia? Not cool.
Also, what's with flirting with the Obama position on Israel? Also not cool.
I missed the speeches, so I won't opine on those.
So on the whole, the week was a mixed bag, but much more to the positive. I'm hoping that Trump and the Australian PM can kiss and make up, but I'll take this over whatever would have come out of President Hillary's office this week, that's for sure.
(And by that standard, he has a lot of latitude and a really low bar).
A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future.
(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)Quote“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”
Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.
“Donald Trump wants to remove us from undue federal scrutiny by removing ‘white supremacists’ from the definition of ‘extremism,’” the founder and editor of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer (which takes its name from a Nazi propaganda publication) wrote in a post on the site. “Yes, this is real life. Our memes are all real life. Donald Trump is setting us free.”
Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room. Visitors conclude their meetings and then wander around, testing doorknobs until finding one that leads to an exit. In a darkened, mostly empty West Wing, Mr. Trump’s provocative chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, finishes another 16-hour day planning new lines of attack.
It'll probably happen sooner rather then later but I want McCain gone now.
Ironbite-man has no spine despite being a "maverick".
OH boy I can't wait for that fight to happen!
Why is that an image? It's all textual content.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40
In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html) 9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.
Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.
In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html) 9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.
Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.
The Ninth Circuit is a bunch of liberal losers. They don't know how to win and will not keep us safe. Sad!
SCOTUS will keep us safe when Sessions makes a tremendous argument before them. SCOTUS will make a tremendous ruling. We'll make America safe again!
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40
As it turns out we have one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-qP_CIZJus
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)How...how could you do this to me?
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.
In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php
...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.
In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php
...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.
Does she not know that online archive services exist?
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.
In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php
...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.
Does she not know that online archive services exist?
Oh my sweet baby-back Jesus cum, Lana in two minutes found the ultimate way to defeat the Trump administration. Free punch and pie for all.
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.
In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php
...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.
Does she not know that online archive services exist?
Oh my sweet baby-back Jesus cum, Lana in two minutes found the ultimate way to defeat the Trump administration. Free punch and pie for all.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/13/spies-must-bored-easy-trump-makes-jobs/
The fact that everyone in the GOP isn't insisting on impeaching Trump ASAP is a clear sign that they care less about USA than they care about their position.
McMahon...
It'd be kind of funny if she suddenly declared she was turning from Heel to Face and kneed Trump in the groin.
"The leaks are absolutely real," he said. "The news is fake because so much of the news is fake."
Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?I would imagine when Pence becomes president, he'd appoint his own vice president who'd then be next in line for the throne. So yeah, no elections until 2020 regardless of impeachments.
Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?I would imagine when Pence becomes president, he'd appoint his own vice president who'd then be next in line for the throne. So yeah, no elections until 2020 regardless of impeachments.
I doubt any impeachment is going to happen. Not with a fully Republican congress.
That Republican Congress would probably prefer Pence to Trump. They're just waiting for a) Trump to give them everything they've been wanting to do for decades and b) Trump to fuck up hard enough that even most of his hardcore supporters admit that he has to go. (Because if they don't wait on the second one, those supporters will abandon them.)
No breaks on the Trump train! If the GOP turns on him the Trump-fanboys will turn on them. They will either have to watch USA burn or risk losing voters and political power. (We shall see which they care more about.)My guess is they'll wait until the ACA repeal. That will hit Trump's base hard, if they spin it right they can blame it on him in a way that's convincing to grassroots Republicans who, lets face facts, are probably just dumb enough to buy it.
They are.Fucking Fox news is telling a sitting Republican president to lay off threatening the media.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/19/fox-news-anchor-chris-wallace-warns-viewers-trump-crossed-the-line-in-latest-attack-on-media/
Ironbite-oh they are.
“If you look at these Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction,” Bannon said. He posited that Trump’s announcement withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership was “one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history.”
Town halls and countless constituent meetings were a hallmark of my tenure in Congress. It's how I was able to serve the people of southern Arizona. I believe that listening to my constituents was the most basic and core tenet of the job I was hired to do. I was shot on a Saturday morning. By Monday morning my offices were open to the public. Ron Barber, at my side that Saturday, who was shot multiple times, then elected to Congress in my stead, held town halls. It's what the people deserve in a representative.
Is it even legal for Spicer to go through someone's phone? Because in Finland it would be something that requires a warrant from a judge I think...
Is it even legal for Spicer to go through someone's phone? Because in Finland it would be something that requires a warrant from a judge I think...
I think there's a difference between whether it's a government phone or a personal phone, because the latter would definitely be off-limits without a warrant but the former could well be open to his inspection.
Well...at least it sounds like Senator Isakson has an okay head on his shoulders, if nothin else.
So now the idiot is claiming Obama wiretapped Trump tower during the campaign. Most likely to deflect from this growing Russia issue. He needs to stop campaigning and try to run the country.
Historically speaking, presidents don't tend to hold onto power in congress for long.
So now the idiot is claiming Obama wiretapped Trump tower during the campaign. Most likely to deflect from this growing Russia issue. He needs to stop campaigning and try to run the country.
The US is in perpetual campaign mode--one of the downsides of fixed election dates. Plus the Republicans have a real chance of picking up a Senate supermajority in 2018.
And now trump with no evidence, and just on hear say is asking Congress to investigate this imaginary wire tapping of trump tower that he some how heard of or made up himself.
This just seems like him saying nuh uh you are to the whole Russian investigation.
I see the GOP losing a lot of seats in the house in 2018 not enough to give it to the democrats and probably maintaining or gaining a seat in the Senate. 2020 is probably when the dems might overtake something.
The real thing to watch in 2018 and 2020 is state races, as then the dems can undo the gerrymandering that kept them out of power for 10 years
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
It is significant that the Framers provided a remedy for such practices* in the Constitution. Article 1, §4, while leaving in state legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, permitted Congress to “make or alter” those districts if it wished.
Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.
Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.
You sure it wasn't independently discovered by multiple people?
Who all happened to be the sole person on the electoral roll in one hundred separate districts?Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.
You sure it wasn't independently discovered by multiple people?
Now Trump has said that Obama has 'wire-tapped' trump tower. The best thing to come out of it is Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying if that's true then it is a big deal. Ignoring the fact that Trump could get direct knowledge if there was any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJTGjxhcCI4
...like a confused centenarian thinking that he's back dodging ordinance in the Somme. This is supposed to...reassure people?
Eh, I didn't mean to imply Trump would be brave enough to put his orange arsehole into danger. Merely that he sounded like he was having a "grandad moment"....like a confused centenarian thinking that he's back dodging ordinance in the Somme. This is supposed to...reassure people?
No, like a cowardly twenty-something with "bone spurs" dodging STDs at orgies while children of poorer parents go to Vietnam to be cannon fodder.
How long before it is also struck down by a federal judge?
"That's what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity, There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."
OK!! Ben Carson....I can't! Immigrants ? In the bottom of SLAVE SHIPS??!! MUTHAFUKKA PLEASE!!!#dickheadedtom
I'll never make another "brain surgeon" joke again.
New travel ban set to be implemented today. It's the same as the old one only Iraq has been left off the no go country list.
Ironbite-thats ballsy
New travel ban set to be implemented today. It's the same as the old one only Iraq has been left off the no go country list.
Ironbite-thats ballsy
It also doesn't turn away permanent residents and people with visas.
A federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order Wednesday evening blocking President Trump’s ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world, dealing a political blow to the White House and signaling that proponents of the ban face a long and risky legal battle ahead.
The ruling was the second frustrating defeat for Mr. Trump’s travel ban, after a federal court in Seattle halted an earlier version of the executive order last month. Mr. Trump responded to that setback with fury, lashing out at the judiciary before ultimately abandoning the order.
He issued a new and narrower travel ban on March 6, with the aim of pre-empting new lawsuits by abandoning some of the most contentious elements of the first version.
But Mr. Trump evidently failed in that goal: Democratic states and nonprofit groups that work with immigrants and refugees raced into court to attack the updated order, alleging that it was a thinly veiled version of the ban on Muslim migration that he had pledged to enact last year, as a presidential candidate.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories about President Trump’s administration.
Donald Trump Budget Slashes Funds for E.P.A. and State Department
MAR 15
Jackson and Trump: How Two Populist Presidents Compare
MAR 15
Is It Illegal to Publish a President’s Tax Returns?
MAR 15
Trump Calls 2005 Tax Return Release ‘Fake News’
MAR 15
U.S. May Soon Increase Pressure on China to Constrain North Korea
MAR 15
See More »
RECENT COMMENTS
MareeB 1 hour ago
Checks and balances!I'm sure we'll see a twitter meltdown sometime soon. Unless he's still fighting with Snoop Dogg.It seems this was also...
Tracy Mitrano 1 hour ago
The Trump Administration is testing the Constitution of the United States. For school children, this kind of activity is a textbook civil...
Ludwig 1 hour ago
I think the federal judge is overstepping his authority. The president does have such powers under the constitution. But Trump has been...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Administration lawyers argued in multiple courts on Wednesday that the president was merely exercising his national security powers and that no element of the executive order, as written, could be construed as a religious test for travelers.
But in the lawsuit brought by Hawaii’s attorney general, Doug Chin, Judge Derrick K. Watson appeared skeptical of the government’s claim that past comments by Mr. Trump and his allies had no bearing on the case.
“Are you saying we close our eyes to the sequence of statements before this?” Judge Watson, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, asked in a hearing Wednesday before he ruled against the administration.
Ironbite-wonder if he'll go for a third strike on this?He might, Trump believes in nothing but Trump remember and he can use this drama to fire up his base and distract them from the fact that they'll lose their healthcare, won't get their old jobs back and that a whole lot of his cabinet and people close to him are real cozy with Russia.
Is it just me, or is there a common refrain among Trump's supporters that "he said he'd get things done and by golly, that's what he's doing!" without anyone actually questioning whether or not the shit he's getting done is actually making things better for people?
TRUMP says that he is doing a great job. They trust him because unlike the lying political elite, Trump is trustworthy. It's not like he would lie after all...It's an alternative fact that this never happens.
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.
Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.
Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.
Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.
The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!
I have been authorised by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office? Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard. At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.
Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.
Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.
Let's be real here. Pence is your ordinary garden-variety reactionary. Bad, sure, but he's not Trump. He'll do things like get rid of health care, try to ban gay marriage and abortions, and enforce Christianity, but Trump will do all those things too. What he won't do is deliberately insult world leaders because he's feeling angry, make up imaginary wiretappings because he's had a bad week, and try to call into question the basic structures of our government. Those are things he won't do, and that's why I'd rather have President Pence than Trumpy.
And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."
...
...
...Are they going to explain that?
And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."
...
...
...Are they going to explain that?
No
It simply isn't possible to be too cynical with this utterly shambolic shitshow.And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."
...
...
...Are they going to explain that?
No
One theory I heard bandied around (by completely biased but amusing commentators) was that Comey thought he was buying himself some appearance of impartiality. Effectively Comey thought Clinton had an unassailable lead and wanted cover for when he had to start prosecutions of members of the Trump campaign post election. Although this appears entirely too cynical.
Well we have it and lots of us are descended from convicts.
Retroactive intergerational imprisonment?
Saw this on Twitter today:
"TRUMP: So, Paul, how's it going over there today? Am I winning or are you losing?"
Got to admit, all policy aside, Trump's ultimatum was a masterful solution to his political problem with the AHCA... although this was largely a problem of his own making. Trump saves quite a bit of face (not all of it, but quite a bit), and Ryan/Congress ends up looking like a complete failure, making Trump all the more powerful on the Hill.
Breitbart comments are saying this was the Trump plan all along to destroy Paul Ryan, which is absurd, but Trump has cannier spur-of-the-moment political instincts than I once gave him credit for. He took the trilemma presented by FiveThirtyEight the other day (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-has-no-good-options-on-health-care/)and kinda did the best parts of all three.
In many respects, AHCA was indeed more conservative than the ACA. Entitlement reforms, tax reforms, and so forth -- all very conservative. But when it came to the core mechanics of health care delivery, which are really the center of the bill, AHCA tried to solve the "three-legged stool" problem by retaining a bunch of unwieldy regulations, backed up by imposing price controls on insurance companies. All in the name of "removing" an individual mandate that was not really removed in any meaningful sense. And where was the effort to seriously extend insurance portability, so you can carry one policy between jobs and into the individual market? You cannot have a successful continuous coverage mandate if there a whole lot of people out there who are incapable of maintaining continuous coverage!
The tax credits system was very conservative, I admit, but in the stupidest way possible. It's like if Paul Ryan wanted to play directly to every single stereotype about Republicans throwing the poor under the bus for the sake of middle-class whites (and the Freedom Caucus, I am sad to say, was all too eager to push him farther). I leave it to Avik Roy to say (https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/07/house-gops-obamacare-replacement-will-make-coverage-unaffordable-for-millions-otherwise-its-great/#3ffe83c237fd) what I think about all that.
Still, I've come to regret saying that I want an "actually conservative" bill. Parts of the AHCA that were unconservative were terrible... but parts that were, by any standard definition, pretty conservative, were also pretty terrible. Those parts managed to synergize to turn the core of this bill into an unholy, insurance-destroying mess.
So I guess what I want is a carefully thought-through bill that is built on conservative principles of minimal intervention, simplicity, state primacy, and individual empowerment -- but I'm willing to tax and spend quite a bit of money to get there, I don't think it's vital to cut taxes as part of a health care reform, and I want the poor to be not screwed over, all of which are traditionally considered old-school liberal priorities. Both the Huffington Post and Breitbart comment sections would crucify me for my plan. (Guess I'm still a Reformocon at heart, even after the last year.)
Of course, it is worth noting that ACA fans would likely say that their bill does indeed follow the principles of minimal intervention, simplicity, state primacy, and individual empowerment... but I think the ACA does those things in the same way the AHCA does insurance portability. Which is to say, it kinda looks like it might if you don't look closely, but then you do look closely and it's a horror show.
> I love America and kittensOh come on, plenty of Trump supporters claim they love America and Hitler!
> I love Hitler and shooting sweet old grannies in the face
> I love America and kittensOh come on, plenty of Trump supporters claim they love America and Hitler!
> I love Hitler and shooting sweet old grannies in the face
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.
He is secretly happy that the AHCA was pulled, because it makes Ryan look weak for being unable to keep his caucus in line.
Trump and Ryan don't exactly get along and Trump would like nothing more than to have as House Speaker someone as pliable and subservient as Mitch McConnell.
Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro, whose show President Trump urged his followers on Twitter to watch earlier in the day, opened her program on Saturday evening by calling on Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to step down.
"Ryan needs to step down as Speaker of the House. The reason: He failed to deliver the votes on his healthcare bill, the one trumpeted to repeal and replace ObamaCare," Pirro said in her opening statement.
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.Nah, he's not a big picture guy. He's a 'nick as much shit as you can and get out' type fella. Reading between the lines isn't common among people who don't like to read.
I'm not saying it was his original plan. He thought it would be simple "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated". Now that he's realised 'Obamacare' is probably pretty good and removing it would fuck his voters. His gut is now just to leave it. As long as he pretends the ACA is different to Obamacare he can pretend its all good and his voters will be happy with it.Well his voters are dumb enough to buy that line, I'll grant you that.
Yeah, that's the big if. As my dad always says, "The Democrats have an amazing talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."
I've been thinking that right now, the Democrats really need to avoid falling into the grave the GOP dug for themselves by actually proposing new laws. Like just every chance they get the floor, throw something out there. Doesn't even matter if it's feasible. Propose single payer. Propose mincome. Propose phasing out fossil fuels by 2030. Propose Mars colonies. Propose open season on murdering billionaires. They don't all have to be good. Just get the ideas out there on the table. Change them from "Things no one would ever seriously try" to "Things we coulda tried if we hadn't left the arsonist party in charge." However many years later they get bakc in power, they've already got some stuff on the table that the people have heard of and thought about, instead of years of "Trust us, we'll have a great plan," which turns out to alienate everyone. And all those ideas that would've been considered unthinkable will have evolved into "The reasonable alternative to the clusterfuck we're in now."
Heck, since Hillary's chance has come and gone, maybe she could write a blog where every week she just very politely says what she'd have done instead.
Rather than the GOP's strategy of being "The party of No", they should as hard as they can be the party of "This instead".
I don't know if the senate rules allow it, but maybe when the vote on Gorsuch happens, instead of voting "Nay", get every single democrat to register their official vote for the record as "Merrick Garland.
Quote...Propose Mars colonies. Propose open season on murdering billionaires. ...
Ok I voted for Trump...
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?
Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.
If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.
I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.
Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking.
I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds.
Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist)
I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.
1) I thought you were a Muslim, or at least had some sort of islamic tint to your religious beliefs, was that right? And do/are you still?
2) I also thought you had trouble finding work/healthcare? Are you on Medicare/ Medicaid? I remember you had trouble with your teeth
3) What do you think immigrants (legal or illegal) get for free that americans don't?
Yes, they compete for jobs with native workers, and that causes a lot of problems for a lot of people. However, where the rubber meets the road, the biggest threat to our economy is how these people will impact our social safety nets and other public programs.
As a country, we have to be realistic about illegal immigration: as long as the U.S. economy offers greater opportunities than the economies in Central America and Mexico, people will continue to do what they need to do to get here. We just don't have the money or manpower to do much about it.
4) What was it about Benghazi and Hillary's involvement that concerns you?
5) Are you not concerned about Trump ordering a military strike in Yemen which resulted in the death of both a US soldier and an 8 year old Yemeni girl which was considered too risky by the previous administration? It also did not result in any new intelligence information.
6) I've heard the story about Hillary threatening rape victims, although when I've read the details the apparent threat is along the lines of Hillary saying 'hello', are you not equally concerned about the stories that Trump raped an underage girl and has sexually assaulted women personally?
7) When you say Hillary is corrupt what do you mean? Is it concerns about nepotism? Like allowing her totally unqualified daughter to have an office in the Whitehouse or security clearance?
8 ) Were you not concerned that a guy who said he has effectively bribed politicians and wouldn't release his tax returns was corrupt?
9) Do you really think that Trump and the Republicans are going to benefit you and your family, and if so why?
Ok I voted for Trump...
Oh, that is rich. Bless your heart.
I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.It's bad because it's all at the lower class's expense, which is already having a rather bad time of things. Those illegals paying more taxes than they use in services are doing so because they're doing some unskilled job for well below minimum wage, a job that would otherwise be done by a legal worker for at least minimum wage and benefits.
They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA
I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.It's bad because it's all at the lower class's expense, which is already having a rather bad time of things. Those illegals paying more taxes than they use in services are doing so because they're doing some unskilled job for well below minimum wage, a job that would otherwise be done by a legal worker for at least minimum wage and benefits.
They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA
Not to mention, the poor paying less taxes than they recieve in government services is exactly how it's supposed to work. It's the rich who're meant to pay more than they receive. It's one of the ways the government reduces inequality, much like progressive tax and minimum wage and benefits. Illegals fucking it up is not a good thing for society overall.
As for your other points, they wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the US took the same approach as the rest of the world and tried to keep their numbers to an absolute minimum, rather than simply paying lip service to the idea while in practice keeping them around as a substitute for slaves.
I don't know but I took a chance by voting for him. Perhaps by getting rid of illegals, trying to get manufacturing jobs back here in the USA, renegotiating NAFTA perhaps people like my nieces and nephew can get into jobs that are substantial, have good wages and be able to live comfortable enough lives.
She allegedly did, I wouldn't put it past her.
She didn't help our ambassadors in Libya when they needed to be rescued.
She and Obama have worsened the situation in the Middle East by bombing them and...
...starting the Syrian Civil War.
She said something racist in the past, something along the lines of "We need to bring these [black/inner city] thugs to heel."
I can't help but think that most of those problems would go away if employers could not get away with paying them less money than legal workersAbsolutely. Not holding employers accountable for hiring illegals is just as big an issue as not deporting said illegals.
I'm sorry, but saying Hillary Clinton being racist is why you voted for Trump is quite possibly the most ironic thing I've heard all year.
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?
Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.
If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.
I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.
And some people might think that being a woman is a flaw.
Donald Trump support racist conspiracy theories about Obama's birth. He started his campaign calling Mexican immigrants rapists. He called for an illegal ban on an entire religion. He retweeted fake statistics on black crime rates from neo-nazis. He refused to condemn the KKK in a live interview. He said that five black teenagers who were proven innocent by DNA evidence should be executed anyway. he ran a campaign entirely based on racism, to the point where stormfront founder Don Black credited him with reviving Neo-Nazism as a political force.
DIRECT QUESTION
Does any of that bother you?
Because I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say that Hillary allegedly "bringing thugs to heel" offends you if your fine with everything Trump did.
So what if Trump is "racist" seriously the only people pumping out that narrative is the leftist media. Even if he did say that shit that's on him and he is not perfect in anyway, he's human, but don't act like the Democrats can't be racist either. You do know about the Dixiecrats right? Maybe you should look back at the Civil Rights era and see who the people were that actually wanted to oppress the black people.
Speaking of racists, the people that I have been seeing that are the most openly racist people are blacks. Look at their BLM marches. You can't tell me them saying "kill all white people" and "fuck all white people" isn't racist. I don't hate blacks but there has been an increasing amount of demonization of white people by the left.
Another thing, the second largest group of people who voted for Trump were Hispanics so he must have done something to appeal to them.
Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?
Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?
I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views, more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs, BLM, the demonization of white people, etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.
Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?
I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views, more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs, BLM, the demonization of white people, etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.
Are you sure you hold liberal views if you are parroting alt-right talking points? I'm a bit surprised because I would have thought you would be the natural demographic for Sanders. I know people were upset about him not winning the democratic nomination but I would have thought you would go with the party closest to what he was pushing for.
Well, I think we have our new Ultimate Paragon, Skybison.Well I thought we had the old one was back, with a sparkly new avatar.
Any bets on how long this one will last?
I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.
Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today.
Ok, tell you what. I'm going to sleep on this and do some more research, if anything my mind can always be changed about something, I just feel a bit hurt right now and not really thinking rationally.
I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.
She. Radiation is a she.
Ironbite-and gone.
She. Radiation is a she.
Ironbite-and gone.
You can be a racist without openly hating anyone. Me too, I can easily think of times when I've acted on unconscious racism and didn't realize it until later.
*sigh* While I don't like the idea of people quitting because they feel ganged up on, as far as I can see that didn't happen here. People might have been passionate about the ideas they were debating but the invective was on a pretty low dial. For when it's turned up look at the locked Gamergate thread or any discussion with Contrarian.
I'm sorry you're leaving Radiation, but people weren't saying you were bad. They were saying you were wrong. Different.
https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData
*redacted due to irrelevance* (Plus President Trump's, if he signs it.)
https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData
*redacted due to irrelevance* (Plus President Trump's, if he signs it.)
Yeah, I think it's safe to say that Mel Brooks as the governor in Blazing Saddles would be more likely to veto something like this than Trump.
I am not good at defining things, what d