EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3945
| 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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged. That statement indeed says nothing about homosexuality, or, for that matter anything specific at all. It is literally without content. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46341 Posts
On June 05 2016 05:26 SK.Testie wrote: Calm down, the dude seriously didn't say anything anti-gay but you made a huge leap on calling him a homophobe and then having the audacity of being smug about it. Edit: I don't think I've gotten away with anything on this site. 1. Banned 2 days for calling Bernie supporters animals when they were clearly rioting. 2 days 2. Banned for posting anti-Islamic news stories, comments, polls etc. 1 week 3. Banned for advocating undignified violent measures towards convicted violent criminals. 30 days All of these bans came as a surprise to me and is a testament to how much the site has changed in the last 10 years. Honestly, I don't think anyone is surprised that you get repeatedly banned. Half the time it's not even about the stories you post, but about how you word things. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 05 2016 05:32 Surth wrote: Just to remind everyone why we are flinging shit at each other: That statement indeed says nothing about homosexuality, or, for that matter anything specific at all. It is literally without content. Yes, and the point is that purposefully vague language like that is used by Trumpists throughout the internet as a placeholder for what amounts to fear of the Other, oftentimes gay or transgender people. In-person, they tend to be more upfront about it  | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On June 05 2016 04:58 farvacola wrote: lol yes, glad to see that you've finally donned the fedora openly. Lemme guess, you just can't wait to let us all know how Trump and his followers like Kiarip are the only people telling the truth and that there are plenty of terrible youtube videos, breitbart articles, and shitty reddit threads to prove it. The nice thing is that y'all are giving the thread an excellent case study on what Trump represents relative to a dialoging population. When prompted to clarify purposefully vague, clumsy, and stupid sounding language like "a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved," y'all just throw up your arms like everyone doesn't tacitly understand the ugly bullshit your words stand for. Look, we get it, gay people, black people, mexican people, they can be scary because they don't look like you and there are more and more of them as time goes on, and yes, their increasing social capital has given them an increasing influence over how public conversations are accepted in common parlance. It's gonna be ok, no matter how many times you use the word cuck or decide to say something vague and inflammatory. Spoken like someone who has never had a prolonged, in-person conversation with a true blood Trump supporter. You missed a few adjectives though, you should probably edit a bit more. I do enjoy the sentiments of our wounded Canadian brothers though, so thanks for letting me know Where in that entire thread was I asked to clarify which part I think is idiotic and which part I think isn't? I answered a question that was asking why it is that liberal protestors tend to be violent, I said it's because for the first time in a while they're losing in the court of public opinion and they're not used to it. I also elaborated in a different post that I thought that violent protest comes natural to people who are used to getting what they want by whining and causing outrage and for the first time in a while are getting push-back. This wasn't at all about POLICY like I said in my very first post of this exchange so... I think this is more of an example of liberal rhetoric that involves attacking the character of their opponents when they refuse to apply the transitive property to the by now traditional equation "progress = good, liberal = progress therefore liberal = good." You can only silence and censor people for so long by calling them intolerant racists, sexists and homophobes for reasons that are completely irrelevant to the actual definition of these words, eventually people get upset at your authoritarian ways and simply ignore you. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 05 2016 05:26 SK.Testie wrote: Calm down, the dude seriously didn't say anything anti-gay but you made a huge leap on calling him a homophobe and then having the audacity of being smug about it. Edit: I don't think I've gotten away with anything on this site. 1. Banned 2 days for calling Bernie supporters animals when they were clearly rioting. 2 days 2. Banned for posting anti-Islamic news stories, comments, polls etc. 1 week 3. Banned for advocating undignified violent measures towards convicted violent criminals. 30 days All of these bans came as a surprise to me and is a testament to how much the site has changed in the last 10 years. Yo what does it mean to "post like a cuck"? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Claiming that any group in a nation this large is inherently violent is a waste of time. Especially when the discussion only seems to only be about the last two weeks. I have relatives that are Trump supporters. I don't think they are terrible people, but I do believe they are making a decision they will grow to regret. Its a 4chan thing. It comes from cuckold, or to be the husband of a cheating wife, and its implied that she refuses to sleep with him. Cuck is any man that is "under the boot" of a woman or submissive to her. Its the world that gets thrown around to talk about dudes and say they are not manly enough. Like beta or some other shit. So to post like a cuck is to not be aggressive or manly enough. To post like a pussy. Tough guy nerd speak. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 05 2016 05:35 Kiarip wrote: Where in that entire thread was I asked to clarify which part I think is idiotic and which part I think isn't? I answered a question that was asking why it is that liberal protestors tend to be violent, I said it's because for the first time in a while they're losing in the court of public opinion and they're not used to it. I also elaborated in a different post that I thought that violent protest comes natural to people who are used to getting what they want by whining and causing outrage and for the first time in a while are getting push-back. This wasn't at all about POLICY like I said in my very first post of this exchange so... I think this is more of an example of liberal rhetoric that involves attacking the character of their opponents when they refuse to apply the transitive property to the by now traditional equation "progress = good, liberal = progress therefore liberal = good." You can only silence and censor people for so long by calling them intolerant racists, sexists and homophobes for reasons that are completely irrelevant to the actual definition of these words, eventually people get upset at your authoritarian ways and simply ignore you. Yes, you leaned on incredibly stilted characterizations of "liberals" as you repeatedly asserted that "the court of public opinion," a thing that literally doesn't exist, unequivocally favors Trump, none of which came with any real support, and now you get to hee and holler about how everyone wants to censor you. Like, are you seriously suggesting that Reaganism didn't dominate public political discourse in the 80s? Newt Gingrich's Congress in the 90s carried what many consider the strongest conservative legislative mandate in US history. We even had 8 fuckin years of George W.! Accordingly, to suggest that "liberals" as a group are historically "used to getting what they want by whining and causing outrage" is to state loudly that you have no idea what you're talking about. Your statements are so divorced from the reality of US history and politics that a reader is practically forced to fill in the blanks relative to what demographic of Trump supporter you belong to, and lemme tell you, it doesn't work out in your favor, particularly when you use masculist cliches for insults. And yet, after the many barbed leaps you managed to pack into an admittedly succinct post, you want folks to stall judgment when you say purposefully vague things directed at groups comprised largely of minorities? | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
Anyways, it's nice to see some progress being made. Warning though, a lot of these are messed up. CHICAGO — Officials here released a huge array of videos and police reports Friday from about 100 open investigations into police shootings and use of force, a sharp reversal in a city still reeling from the impact of long-withheld footage showing an officer fatally shooting a teenager. As the city’s police department faces intense scrutiny and a looming Justice Department investigation, authorities promising reform and increased transparency said they were releasing the trove to try and restore trust between officers and the community. The agency that investigates allegations of police misconduct in the city posted this material all at once, which experts said was an “unprecedented” move. The video footage, documents and other evidence released Friday date back as far as five years. Included in these documents are the names of at least a dozen officers who have fatally shot someone and have not previously been identified by the police department. In many cases, police reports are accompanied by blurry recordings — captured by dashboard cameras or cellphones — showing little other than stationary police cars, officers standing amid flashing blue and red lights. Chicago releases ‘unprecedented’ evidence from nearly 100 investigations into police shootings, use of force | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On June 05 2016 05:44 Plansix wrote: Liberals are violent during a protest. Conservatives punch a protester in the face at at Trump rally and say they will kill him if he comes back. Liberals rage at the in Chicago because the police department is completely corrupt. White supremacist indoctrinate a teenager and inspire him to shoot 9 people in a black church. Claiming that any group in a nation this large is inherently violent is a waste of time. Especially when the discussion only seems to only be about the last two weeks. I have relatives that are Trump supporters. I don't think they are terrible people, but I do believe they are making a decision they will grow to regret. I never said that conservatives weren't violent. I was discussing protestors in particular. No one can deny that Trump has a lot of supporters Bernie also has a lot of supporters. A lot of the Bernie supporters think that Trump is a fascist and hate him because of that. A lot of Trump supporters think that Bernie is a commie and hate him because of that. A significant amount of the protestors at Trump's rallies are the Bernie supporters who hate Trump. Trump supporters don't come to protest Bernie rallies even though a significant portion of Trump supporters think Bernie is terrible and an evil communist... Violence at Trump rallies is at the VERY LEAST the indirect result of protestors (eg. coming to a rally and antagonizing people who are simply coming to see their candidate of choice) and recently (California) seems to be the direct result of the protestors' actions. The question was why are the protests and violence not symmetrical? Answer, because coming out to protest and complaining is a tool in the liberal progressive toolbox because liberals are used to coming out and and getting their way by standing in the way and whining. When this stops working the natural escalation is an increase in force and violence. Conservatives are used to being the ones being shamed and liberals the ones doing the shaming, as a result liberals have become shameless themselves and end up trying to rationalize their violent behavior like we recently saw done by the Salon editor. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On June 05 2016 05:46 farvacola wrote: Yes, you leaned on incredibly stilted characterizations of "liberals" as you repeatedly asserted that "the court of public opinion," a thing that literally doesn't exist, unequivocally favors Trump, none of which came with any real support, and now you get to hee and holler about how everyone wants to censor you. Like, are you seriously suggesting that Reaganism didn't dominate public political discourse in the 80s? Newt Gingrich's Congress in the 90s carried what many consider the strongest conservative legislative mandate in US history. We even had 8 fuckin years of George W.! Accordingly, to suggest that "liberals" as a group are historically "used to getting what they want by whining and causing outrage" is to state loudly that you have no idea what you're talking about. Your statements are so divorced from the reality of US history and politics that a reader is practically forced to fill in the blanks relative to what demographic of Trump supporter you belong to, and lemme tell you, it doesn't work out in your favor, particularly when you use masculist cliches for insults. And yet, after the many barbed leaps you managed to pack into an admittedly succinct post, you want folks to stall judgment when you say purposefully vague things directed at groups comprised largely of minorities? The court of public opinion absolutely exists and is extremely important. That's why liberals protest in the first place... because it works (or used to). When any conservative group has a demonstration or sometimes just an event, liberals come to protest because they're used to being able to shift the public opinion with their protests. When a liberal cause has a demonstration or an event there are almost never any conservative protestors and if there are they are very fringe groups (eg. Westboro baptists or something.) I'm not saying that conservatives have never gotten what they want, I'm just saying that conservatives don't protest, because it doesn't work for them. We also had 8 fucking years of Clinton, so what? I'm not saying that the court of public opinion favors Trump, but given the "severity" and intensity of liberal attacks on Trump's character if it was anyone else he would have been long fired, re-fired, excommunicated and exiled from the country. The fact that Trump is still doing well is a sign that the public is tired of being bullied, censored and led by the nose by liberals who rely on censoring opposition by instigating invalid moral outrage. edit: Also I obviously don't mean that ALL liberals protests, or that ALL liberals frequently shame their opposition into self-censorship. I mean the particular ones who do, do those things and yes I am implying that it's done a lot more often by liberals than it is by conservatives (and yes there are other terrible things that conservatives do more often than liberals, but once again this particular discussion was about the violent protests) | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On June 05 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote: Why would the violence be symmetrical? And no one is shaming anyone. When people whine about being shamed, they are really complaining about their less then accepting and inclusive opinions being challenged. Not just the violence but the protests. Everyone is protesting the horrible fascist but no one is protesting the disgusting commie... Even though their supporters strongly dislike the other candidate for the most part. The question was is why is it that the liberal side that's coming to conservative rallies and ultimately causing violence and not the other way around. And that is what I was addresing. Yeah, that's only the case if that person is actually not inclusive. When you start shaming others using assumptions you've made about their morality based on the fact that they are unwilling to fall in-line with you politically you are simply trying to use the threat of moral outrage (over that person being a supposed bigot or w.e) to censor their political opinions and this has been a commonly used tool by a lot of liberal agenda-pushers. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
You are free to hold those views if you hold them. If you want to express them, you can't whine if you get some push back. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
I guess it's full-on if you can't beat them, join them? | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On June 05 2016 05:44 Plansix wrote: Liberals are violent during a protest. Conservatives punch a protester in the face at at Trump rally and say they will kill him if he comes back. Liberals rage at the in Chicago because the police department is completely corrupt. White supremacist indoctrinate a teenager and inspire him to shoot 9 people in a black church. Claiming that any group in a nation this large is inherently violent is a waste of time. Especially when the discussion only seems to only be about the last two weeks. I have relatives that are Trump supporters. I don't think they are terrible people, but I do believe they are making a decision they will grow to regret. Its a 4chan thing. It comes from cuckold, or to be the husband of a cheating wife, and its implied that she refuses to sleep with him. Cuck is any man that is "under the boot" of a woman or submissive to her. Its the world that gets thrown around to talk about dudes and say they are not manly enough. Like beta or some other shit. So to post like a cuck is to not be aggressive or manly enough. To post like a pussy. Tough guy nerd speak. You are totally missing the racial element here. When the alt-right twitter Trumpkins attack establishment Republicans for being insufficiently pro-Trump and call them "cucks", they are referring to white genocide and white demographic decline memes. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Republican Party leaders are courting Beltway insiders to help write a platform that wins over the special interests that Donald Trump regularly trashes on the campaign trail. There’s just one thing: The Republican National Committee is barely talking about Trump as it meets with virtually every Republican-leaning business interest in town. “They were not speaking about the nominee” — only the platform, said an attendee at one session. “That’s what they control.” The RNC has organized as many as 10 closed-door huddles with business lobbyists to discuss the party's platform — and not incidentally, engage the business establishment, many of whom feel alienated by a candidate who calls for ripping up trade agreements and boycotting companies such as Apple and Carrier that run afoul of his positions. "The platform committee is going to assemble a reasonable set of principles designed to make the GOP and convention delegates feel good about the foundation of the party,” said one GOP strategist, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. Nonetheless, the strategist added, “No reasonable Republican thinks the platform has any real heft, and hardly expects that it'll be something that Trump will care enough about to abide.” Source | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
It would be nice if you could not be incredibly vague about what you consider "large portion of THE PART that's idiotic". There's been a whole host of topics fought over since the 1990s in the current culture war. I'm going to assume you're looking to attack "PC" and "feminist" culture, but, well, I don't want to mis-attribute opinions here. Would still like a response to this, as I would like to tackle your argument, but have no basis to start. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
On June 05 2016 06:27 TheTenthDoc wrote: The hilarity of people tired of "being bullied" out of discourse rallying behind someone who denigrated his opponents' appearances on the debate stage when they confronted him on his awful positions and insulted their significant others during the primary when they challenged him is great. He just used direct insults instead of calling them non-PC like those "liberals" do, it's the same shit different stink. I guess it's full-on if you can't beat them, join them? I think that's not how Trump supporters understand "being bullied out of discourse". They're not against insulting in general but they don't like censorship and they feel like people with their views are being silenced. I mean stuff like removing hate speech in social media or disrupting Trump rallies. | ||
| ||
