| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On March 19 2016 18:41 Jibba wrote: I'm pretty sure Testie has gotten bored with life, so lately he's taken to seeing how ridiculous he can be in this thread. Ah, fair enough. I only rarely pop in here so I forget who trolls. Poe's Law in full effect. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
On March 19 2016 15:02 Mohdoo wrote: Honest question: Why are people protesting a Trump rally? Why are they willing to get violent? Get a fucking job and find a better way to spend your time. They are getting paid to protest, it is literally their job. edit: Those Mexican and USSR flags though... :D On March 19 2016 18:37 FuzzyJAM wrote: What an odd post. IDK if English is a second language for you or something, but revolutions don't have to be violent. Communist revolutions have consistently throughout history been the most non-violent, non-horrific flower power gatherings who's only aim is world peace and love. /sarcasm | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On March 19 2016 15:02 Mohdoo wrote: Honest question: Why are people protesting a Trump rally? Why are they willing to get violent? Get a fucking job and find a better way to spend your time. I'm pretty sure that wasn't an honest question. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28911 Posts
Attacking him for speaking on a 'low' (and easily understandable) level is not just petty and condescending, it's also very counter-productive in that it establishes part of his anti-elitist narrative as true. I mean, the 'I have the best words' line is hilarious and hard not to smile at, but if you want to stump the trump, telling his supporters that they are dumb is not the way to do it... While you might argue that american education is a partial failure showcased by how you have to speak at a 4th grade level to reach out to the disenfranchised masses, that actually isn't Trump's fault. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2686 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12589 Posts
On March 19 2016 14:55 wei2coolman wrote: Kind reminder that Bernie Sanders has the moral high ground here. Trump does not. That's why Trump is getting blamed for all of this violence. This video has been edited tho. The original is called "Full CNN Democratic Town Hall Ohio Bernie Sanders 3/13/2016". I can't help but notice spreading clearly false information hasn't really been much of an issue for you these past few days. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7198 Posts
On March 19 2016 18:44 zeo wrote: They are getting paid to protest, it is literally their job. edit: Those Mexican and USSR flags though... :D Communist revolutions have consistently throughout history been the most non-violent, non-horrific flower power gatherings who's only aim is world peace and love. /sarcasm Socialism =/= communism | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On March 19 2016 17:17 SK.Testie wrote: Don't worry, Bernie's non-violent. Surely his "inspiring" rhetoric against the rich boogeymen ruining the country isn't inciting people to do anything... + Show Spoiler + https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KOKs3lCdGp8/maxresdefault.jpg At least this one has the peace symbol instead of a closed fist. ![[image loading]](http://www.betterworld.net/quotes/tweets/Bernie-Revolution2.jpg) Call it a revolution.. and anything can become justified. A shame millions voted for him, and he can't be held responsible for the actions of a few. I almost feel like arguing with this post gives it undeserved legitimacy but you're reaching very very far to call that equivalent to Trump explicitly condoning violence. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Attacking him for speaking on a 'low' (and easily understandable) level is not just petty and condescending, it's also very counter-productive in that it establishes part of his anti-elitist narrative as true. I mean, the 'I have the best words' line is hilarious and hard not to smile at, but if you want to stump the trump, telling his supporters that they are dumb is not the way to do it... While you might argue that american education is a partial failure showcased by how you have to speak at a 4th grade level to reach out to the disenfranchised masses, that actually isn't Trump's fault. So in the next election, if somebody comes across speaking like he's speaking with babies and/or a dog, that'd be a good thing too? It's not condecending or petty. I give you that it might be counter-productive, but any criticism (and there's fucktons of justified criticisms) is. So who cares. And no, i actually don't think that the general US education is so bad that you literally have to speak like a 12 year old to get understood (idiocracy is still maybe a decade away). There's quite a considerable amount of stuff where american education is beyond belief (history, geography are shockingly bad), but "language" isn't really part of it. And obviously that's not a new issue that came up with trump. Acting like clinton, obama etc beforehand weren't "understood" because they didn't speak like a pre-pubescent boy is just dishonest. And considering the fact that not once in the election he showed differently, i'd love to see his hamfisted populistic attempts at diplomacy. That ought to be good, considering how well perceived populists are across the world. And contrary to common belief in the US, foreign relations are more important than most "lol who gives a shit" guys think. Let the hilarity ensue. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
directly insulting a moderator -> temp ban (totally fine) insufferable ignorance trolling about everything left of hillary is literally lenin -> nuked calling for a killing of all the protesters at trumps rallye -> totally fine (what?) trying to use the fact that we are all animalia to somehow demean people as animals -> totally fine insufferable ignorance trolling by testie -> also fine not sure if i see the line yet. and back to topic: nope protesters do not deserve to be shot, being able to protest is a basic necessity of democratic public discourse if the police force can't secure the right to publicly protest for both sides it has to get better, it is their job to neutrally seperate the camps, ensure their rights of expression, prevent violence (by separating and deescalating) and of course deal with violations of the law. about the line of thought presented by several annoyingly smug posters that everyone protesting trump is an unfucked unemployed (somehow subhuman) animal: calling for someone to get a job is an insult that should fall flat because in an economy where there are less job openings than unemployed full employment is absolutely impossible and therefore unemployed people must exist. Individualistic and personal responsibilty based approaches to demean your fellow humans and rob them of their dignity are one of the catastrophic roadblocks in fighting inequality and real hardship. Soon there will be no more jobs for the masses, for a while there will be some for the elites, but noone is unreplaceable. The only reason i can think of why you position yourself so high on the pedestal is that you consider yourself unreplaceable virtuous and that is an issue for a stable amicable society where everyone can feel he has a liveable dignified life. It is a newly dressed up type of identity politcs where you are the "useful" against the "useless". In your circles you can nod to each other how useful you all are and how the other are worthless moochers doing nothing with their life. But what is the endgame? How does that improve society? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On March 19 2016 22:28 m4ini wrote: So in the next election, if somebody comes across speaking like he's speaking with babies and/or a dog, that'd be a good thing too? It's not condecending or petty. I give you that it might be counter-productive, but any criticism (and there's fucktons of justified criticisms) is. So who cares. And no, i actually don't think that the general US education is so bad that you literally have to speak like a 12 year old to get understood (idiocracy is still maybe a decade away). There's quite a considerable amount of stuff where american education is beyond belief (history, geography are shockingly bad), but "language" isn't really part of it. And obviously that's not a new issue that came up with trump. Acting like clinton, obama etc beforehand weren't "understood" because they didn't speak like a pre-pubescent boy is just dishonest. And considering the fact that not once in the election he showed differently, i'd love to see his hamfisted populistic attempts at diplomacy. That ought to be good, considering how well perceived populists are across the world. And contrary to common belief in the US, foreign relations are more important than most "lol who gives a shit" guys think. Let the hilarity ensue. I disagree with the notion that "any criticism" is counterproductive; like Drone implies, there are a number of significantly more meaningful lines of criticism that can be directed at Trump relative to the actual merits of his candidacy, i.e. grasp of the issues, diplomatic competency, and willingness to work with others, just to name a scant few. Focusing on the quality and register of his language skills is to miss the forest for the trees, I think, but that doesn't mean that the woods aren't worth going into  | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On March 19 2016 22:48 farvacola wrote: I disagree with the notion that "any criticism" is counterproductive; like Drone implies, there are a number of significantly more meaningful lines of criticism that can be directed at Trump relative to the actual merits of his candidacy, i.e. grasp of the issues, diplomatic competency, and willingness to work with others, just to name a scant few. Focusing on the quality and register of his language skills is to miss the forest for the trees, I think, but that doesn't mean that the woods aren't worth going into all those criticisms are viable but they are not "productive" as there is nothing to fix/produce in the criticised. the faults are not there by accident but by design. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
On March 19 2016 20:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: Agreed, him saying 'very' and 'totally' in front of his adjectives rather than use more advanced descriptive words is irrelevant. The problems are a) he constantly lies, b) his message is one of hatred and division and c) he presents simplistic solutions to complex problems. Attacking him for speaking on a 'low' (and easily understandable) level is not just petty and condescending, it's also very counter-productive in that it establishes part of his anti-elitist narrative as true. I mean, the 'I have the best words' line is hilarious and hard not to smile at, but if you want to stump the trump, telling his supporters that they are dumb is not the way to do it... While you might argue that american education is a partial failure showcased by how you have to speak at a 4th grade level to reach out to the disenfranchised masses, that actually isn't Trump's fault. When you've got Sanders saying stuff like "White people don't know what it's like being poor" it's pretty clear which party is being more divisive.The same one as always. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On March 19 2016 22:49 puerk wrote: all those criticisms are viable but they are not "productive" as there is nothing to fix/produce in the criticised. the faults are not there by accident but by design. Ahh, but that line of thinking would necessarily conclude that critical political discourse is inherently unproductive, and I genuinely do not think that that is the case. For example, I recently had a discussion with a fellow law student that challenges that conclusion. Having been a fan of Trump, he hadn't really critically engaged with the substance of Trump's platform and had instead built up a defense of Trump that revolved around brushing off CNN -style attacks directed towards Trump's hair, demeanor, and word use. Given the deplorable quality of media coverage relative to Trump, who can blame him? Once prompted to actually interact with some of Trump's ideas, he rather quickly admitted that many of them were not workable and that some of the more troubling ones, namely Trump's approach to diplomacy and immigration, would in fact harm the United States in the long run. All it took was some respectful criticism directed towards Trump's substance rather than his style. Now, what's interesting to ponder is whether or not Trump is aware of the fact that his campaign's merits don't stand up to scrutiny outside the inflammatory realm of the mainstream media. I'm not sure myself, though I do think he's more of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of guy rather than a master strategist. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28911 Posts
My point of view is that the worst way of convincing someone that they are wrong is to start off the message with a snippet about how they are idiots. And the ridicule of Trump's 'low level speaking' does carry an extra message of 'lol, his voters are only voting for him because they are uneducated idiots' - an attitude I think merely cements their idea that Trump is 'one of us' rather than part of the washington elite which doesn't care about the plights of the common man. I think Trump's angry rhetoric has already hurt the political discourse - but Trump's opposition (and I'm part of this - I also accept responsibility) is also to blame through engaging in divisive ridicule. Anger breeds best in an angry environment - if we are able to stay calm and composed and if we focus on policy not personality, then Trump and his supporters cannot find unity through the opposition they encounter and Trump cannot deflect the legitimate attacks on his policy suggestions through deflecting the attacks on his personality and the societal makeup of his supporters. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois on Friday became the first Republican senator to call for an up-or-down vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, saying on a Chicago radio show that his colleagues ought to “just man up and cast a vote.” That Kirk would be first to break with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP colleagues, who believe the next president should pick the replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, is not particularly surprising: Kirk was already one of two Republican senators, with Susan Collins of Maine, to call for hearings. Kirk faces what is perhaps the most difficult Senate reelection race in the nation — running during a presidential election year as a Republican in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican president since George H.W. Bush in 1988. He is pitted against Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D), who has already sought to tie Kirk to national Republicans, including GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump. Further complicating matters for Kirk is that Garland grew up in Illinois, in a Chicago suburb only a few miles from the border of the congressional district Kirk used to represent. Kirk, speaking Friday morning on WLS-AM, said that the Senate “should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out” but that he did not see McConnell relenting before the election. “I think given Mitch’s view, I don’t see his view changing too much,” Kirk said. “Eventually we will have an election, and we will have a new president, and the new president will come forward with a nomination.” Among Senate Republicans, only Kirk and Collins have said they favor holding hearings on Garland’s nomination. Several others have said they would grant a courtesy meeting but only to inform Garland of their position against taking up his nomination. Source | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On March 19 2016 23:05 farvacola wrote: Ahh, but that line of thinking would necessarily conclude that critical political discourse is inherently unproductive, and I genuinely do not think that that is the case. For example, I recently had a discussion with a fellow law student that challenges that conclusion. Having been a fan of Trump, he hadn't really critically engaged with the substance of Trump's platform and had instead built up a defense of Trump that revolved around brushing off CNN -style attacks directed towards Trump's hair, demeanor, and word use. Given the deplorable quality of media coverage relative to Trump, who can blame him? Once prompted to actually interact with some of Trump's ideas, he rather quickly admitted that many of them were not workable and that some of the more troubling ones, namely Trump's approach to diplomacy and immigration, would in fact harm the United States in the long run. All it took was some respectful criticism directed towards Trump's substance rather than his style. Now, what's interesting to ponder is whether or not Trump is aware of the fact that his campaign's merits don't stand up to scrutiny outside the inflammatory realm of the mainstream media. I'm not sure myself, though I do think he's more of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of guy rather than a master strategist. Well put. I think you describe the basis of a lot of Trump's support. | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
