|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 14 2016 02:40 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 14:31 TheTenthDoc wrote: Trump is just exercising his constitutional right to deceive hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, just like Carly Fiorina did about Planned Parenthood videos. There's nothing wrong with lying and never facing any consequences for it. It's perfectly healthy for democracy. Hillary emails....
I don't see how Hillary lying and misrepresenting the truth excuses anyone else doing the same? She does walk back the straight up disprovable lies most of the time which makes her marginally better I think. But anyone culturing their own pseudo-reality bubble for their supporters these days is pretty despicable in my eyes, no matter their political beliefs.
If you're not going to fight the reality bubbles the media is crafting for profit, at least don't make your own.
|
On March 14 2016 02:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 23:41 oneofthem wrote: a lot of people are responsive to the red meat trump throws out at the group identity level. they dont have the internal alarm educated liberals do with respect to race etc.
then under common mis or low info about policy trump has no glaring negatives. given same ignorance about policy they are also easily led about hillary.
politics as spectacle being more accurate as a description of democracy in actual practice is just unmistakble this time around. Good lord. This is some seriously elitist bullshit. You can't just excuse all of Hillary's numerous flaws under the guise of voters are stupid. Likewise, explaining away Trump's rise as identity politics completely ignores the very legitimate grievances that his supporters have.
They have legitimate grievances but Trump doesn't have legitimate answers. California is near full-employment. Throwing all the illegals out who do like every second manual job in agriculture will mean that prices will spike because there simply is not enough reserve labour to fill the gap. This ironically will hit poor people the most, and that is genuinely stupid
|
On March 14 2016 02:40 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 14:31 TheTenthDoc wrote: Trump is just exercising his constitutional right to deceive hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, just like Carly Fiorina did about Planned Parenthood videos. There's nothing wrong with lying and never facing any consequences for it. It's perfectly healthy for democracy. Hillary emails.... David Petraeus intentionally revealed top secret information to his mistress and didn't serve jail time and received probation. Hillary had emails on a server that was not 100% secure and contained extremely limit top secret information that no one can prove anyone saw or were exposed to. At worst it is negligence that lead to no one being harmed. That is nothing compared to willing releasing an illegally obtained edited video with the solo purpose to lie to the public about health services provided by Planned Parenthood.
|
On March 14 2016 02:40 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 14:31 TheTenthDoc wrote: Trump is just exercising his constitutional right to deceive hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, just like Carly Fiorina did about Planned Parenthood videos. There's nothing wrong with lying and never facing any consequences for it. It's perfectly healthy for democracy. Hillary emails.... What about them?
|
On March 14 2016 02:16 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 01:52 darthfoley wrote: the shitty Donald Trump violence empty-suit statement Must have missed this, when did that happen?
Hillary Clinton draws criticism for her response to violence at Trump’s Chicago rally
Hillary Clinton’s statement in response to an outbreak of violence at Republican Party front-runner Donald Trump’s Chicago rally was aimed at encouraging political unity. But instead, many reacted to her statement with disappointment.
Basically, she refused to cite Donald Trump or use the term racism/xenophobia while using the bullshit "divisive rhetoric" catch phrase. Just came off suuuper general electiony and not really hitting the right note.
|
I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today.
|
#PCGoneWrong
User was warned for this post
|
On March 14 2016 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote: I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today. I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for turning people into racists. More like he enables them and encourages them.
|
On March 14 2016 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote: I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today.
He is a demagogue. He said he wants to punch the protestors. He loved the old days, where protestors would be carried out on a stretcher. He said he would pay the legal fees. He said security escorting protestors were being too nice or too slow or too weak. Police is too afraid to lose their job to act forcefully, etc. He always screams "Out out out!".
Only once he said "Be nice to them." Almost always protestors are pushed, punched and he cheers on his supporters.
He wants to unleash mob mentality.
|
On March 14 2016 03:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote: I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today. He is a demagogue. He said he wants to punch the protestors. He loved the old days, where protestors would be carried out on a stretcher. He said he would pay the legal fees. He said security escorting protestors were being too nice or too slow or too weak. Police is too afraid to lose their job to act forcefully, etc. He always screams "Out out out!". Only once he said "Be nice to them." Almost always protestors are pushed, punched and he cheers on his supporters. He wants to unleash mob mentality.
Well is he doing a good job at it?
|
On March 13 2016 18:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 17:53 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 17:17 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 16:58 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 16:46 kwizach wrote:On March 13 2016 16:17 oBlade wrote:This is the post of mine that you responded to: On March 13 2016 09:30 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 09:02 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2016 08:52 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 08:44 Plansix wrote: [quote] Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He isn't even dominating the primary process. He picks up 35-40% of Republicans that vote in the primaries. He rarely breaks 50% if ever. He is dominating in a field of losers. He is the biggest loser in a field of unappealing options for Republicans and is doing so through populist rants about China, deportation and that all Muslims are a threat. His ability to win shows the state of the Republican party, not some shift in the nations views. There's 4 candidates still in the running... do you have any kind of historical precedent or something to show there's something wrong with his performance as frontrunner? Like the 2012 election or something? There is this. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/People do not like him. Like at all. It is one of the threats in the primary system and why the parties used to focus on "electability". It used to be a huge factor, could the candidate sway independent voters. That is not a popular subject now, but the parties are not really what they used to be either. Especially the Republicans. Please focus. You were talking about the Republican primary and then responded with the general election, which is a separate question. + Show Spoiler +Here's a PPP poll from early Feb 2016 (most recent I found) showing Trump leading slightly in a GOP field of four. He is farther ahead now - this is just about the lowest poll performance he's had in the past two months (FYI), and he was still ahead on it. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_20416.pdfTrump’s favorability has dropped a net 17 points, from a previous +24 standing at 58/34 to now just +7 at 48/41.Trump is particularly starting to struggle on the right- he’s dropped to 3rd place with ‘very conservative’ voters at 19% with Cruz at 34% and Rubio at 22% outpacing him with that group. He does still lead with moderates and ‘somewhat conservative’ voters to give him the overall advantage. Now here's a PPP poll from mid-March 2012 showing Romney (he went on to secure the nomination) leading slightly in a field of four. For reference, in the mid-March primaries Romney was getting about 35% of actual voters. This was the poll's results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032112.pdfRomney’s favorability spread is up 18 points from almost even at 44% favorable and 43% unfavorable to 54-35 in the last month, while Santorum’s is down 13 points from 64-22 to 59-30. Corresponding with that, Romney now leads the national primary preference with 34% to Santorum’s 31%, Newt Gingrich’s 20%, and Ron Paul’s 9%. If you don't know how to interpret this data, I can help. Trump is polling in the same range as Romney was under similar circumstances at a similar time in the primaries. He's really not the black sheep you want to paint him as. which was taking up this unambiguous statement by Plansix: He isn't even dominating the primary process. He picks up 35-40% of Republicans that vote in the primaries. You are taking that sentence out of context. No. I was solely addressing the doubts about his primary performance (and the implicit expectation that he ought to be further ahead), which you've yet to realize four pages later.  Yes you are, since Plansix' points was not only about Trump's weakness with respect to the Republican electorate participating in the primary, and you did not specify otherwise in the question you asked him (which is why he replied to you in relation to his main point about the general electorate). Regardless, and like I've repeatedly pointed out, I still addressed your point on this particular topic, as distinct from Trump's weakness with respect to the general electorate, by presenting you with data and an analysis of that data which show that Trump is in a weaker position than Romney among the Republican electorate with regards to who they would be happy with as their nominee. The answer to your question is therefore that yes, there is a historical precedent that shows there is something wrong with Trump's performance with regards to the Republican primary, namely how he is viewed among the Republicans who did not vote for him in the primary. The Republicans who did not vote in the primary for the frontrunner were more likely to be ready to support the frontrunner in 2012 than they are in 2016. This is a fact. It directly answers your question. After four pages of discussion, either you have a serious cognitive problem preventing you from acknowledging this fact (and acknowledging it as relevant to what we're discussing), or you're deliberately (and dishonestly) ignoring it. What, in your own words, do you believe my point was? I answered that in the post you just quoted. If you have nothing to reply to the evidence I presented you with to show Trump's specific weakness among the Republican primary electorate compared to the previous frontrunner (Romney), stop deflecting and stop replying altogether. You should be able to paraphrase the ideas of someone you're responding to even if you think you don't agree. That's one of the tests that a discussion's being held in good faith. That you can't (and ignore when I spell them out for you) is confirming my suspicion either 1) you don't know what I'm saying 2) you do know but can't let go of the line you've taken.
|
On March 14 2016 03:40 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote: I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today. I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for turning people into racists. More like he enables them and encourages them.
Really?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/183EADd.png)
Source
|
On March 14 2016 03:50 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 03:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On March 14 2016 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote: I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today. He is a demagogue. He said he wants to punch the protestors. He loved the old days, where protestors would be carried out on a stretcher. He said he would pay the legal fees. He said security escorting protestors were being too nice or too slow or too weak. Police is too afraid to lose their job to act forcefully, etc. He always screams "Out out out!". Only once he said "Be nice to them." Almost always protestors are pushed, punched and he cheers on his supporters. He wants to unleash mob mentality. Well is he doing a good job at it? I think people are missing the point that he wants protesters at his rallies, thats why he hasn't pressed charges until now. Some sickley looking collage kid comes in, holds up a sign and acts annoying, Trump takes that as a que to hype up the crowd. 'Look at that guy', 'really sad people', 'get em outta here'. Crowd goes into defensive mode, starts chanting USA USA, TRUMP TRUMP. Protester that looks like he's never been employed in his life gets kicked out, crowd cheers, have a moment where they feel that they have won, go back to listening to Trump with more energy. And the protesters give them 5-6 wins a rally. People that don't like liberals start rooting for Trump because whatever pisses the liberals off the most, they want more of it.
See, in Eastern Europe we would call people that protest Trump 'useful idiots', they feel like they have contributed something but in reality they have been used and exploited by all sides. I would really love to see what would happen if someone came to a Bernie rally and started protesting against communism, maybe step on a few Mexican and Soviet flags because they are just pieces of cloth anyway.
|
He draws tens of thousands of people, so some protesters are inevitable, but he's definitely great at exploiting them.
On another note he's really campaigning his toupee off. He's doing 3 rallies a day in 2-3 states for days on end. I don't think anyone else is going at it that hard.
|
On March 14 2016 04:04 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 03:40 Toadesstern wrote:On March 14 2016 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote: I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today. I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for turning people into racists. More like he enables them and encourages them. Really? Source That doesn't go against what I said, does it?
What I said is basicly: People aren't saying 'Trump is turning people into racists when before they were perfectly fine, it's just that Trump makes it acceptable to be openly racists. So people who thought so earlier and kept their mouth shut a couple months ago are now around Trump because not only is it okay to say such things around him, he glorifies it.' That's a difference.
I haven't read the entire thing but it seems that's what they're going after as well.
Your entire point was basicly: Someone beats up person A. That someone runs away, person B gets on the scene and makes a big scene about how amazing it is that person A finally got beaten up. You then say that people shouldn't criticize person B for that but should instead only criticize the guy who beat up person A because he's actually the one responsible for this. I think you can very well criticize person B as well, or rather criticizing person B doesn't diminish the criticism on the innitial guy at all.
|
Norway28716 Posts
On March 14 2016 03:50 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 03:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On March 14 2016 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote: I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today. He is a demagogue. He said he wants to punch the protestors. He loved the old days, where protestors would be carried out on a stretcher. He said he would pay the legal fees. He said security escorting protestors were being too nice or too slow or too weak. Police is too afraid to lose their job to act forcefully, etc. He always screams "Out out out!". Only once he said "Be nice to them." Almost always protestors are pushed, punched and he cheers on his supporters. He wants to unleash mob mentality. Well is he doing a good job at it?
What is this supposed to mean? Are you saying that he is 'good at unleashing mob mentality'?
|
On March 14 2016 04:04 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 03:40 Toadesstern wrote:On March 14 2016 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote: I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today. I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for turning people into racists. More like he enables them and encourages them. Really? Source That's the fucking Washington Post dude
|
On March 14 2016 04:26 OtherWorld wrote:
That's the fucking Washington Post dude Uhm... If you're point is in critique of it, you do realize the Post is one of the most trusted and respected papers in America right now?
If not then I don't see your point?
|
On March 14 2016 04:42 dragonswarrior wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 04:26 OtherWorld wrote:
That's the fucking Washington Post dude Uhm... If you're point is in critique of it, you do realize the Post is one of the most trusted and respected papers in America right now? If not then I don't see your point? Let me guess, you support Clinton?
|
On March 14 2016 04:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 03:50 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 14 2016 03:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On March 14 2016 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote: I find it hilarious that everyone is blaming Donald Trump for the violence. Granted he's acting irresponsibly in reaction for pretty clear personal gain, the violence, bigotry, racism and all the rest is merely brought to light, but was never engaged with properly. In fact, decades of neglect and suppression of these segments of society has probably fueled the anger and pent up frustration that's being aired today. He is a demagogue. He said he wants to punch the protestors. He loved the old days, where protestors would be carried out on a stretcher. He said he would pay the legal fees. He said security escorting protestors were being too nice or too slow or too weak. Police is too afraid to lose their job to act forcefully, etc. He always screams "Out out out!". Only once he said "Be nice to them." Almost always protestors are pushed, punched and he cheers on his supporters. He wants to unleash mob mentality. Well is he doing a good job at it? What is this supposed to mean? Are you saying that he is 'good at unleashing mob mentality'?
Is that what you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|