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 September 17 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote: Trump seems more about bringing disunity to the USA than unity. but you can want him to do whatever you like, as he surely ain't gonna deliver.
That's not what I see (I am someone who has seen every one of his speeches on the internet). Obviously I'm going to be biased, but I see a powerful message of unity in his speeches, what you see in the little snippets in media, obviously will be taken out of context, much like Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorable.
In my eyes, it's a complete shame of Hillary for being a useless politician that can't talk about anything good about herself, 95-99% of her campaign has become shitting on Trump... Like Obama said, don't we have something more meaningful to talk about? Just look at Hillary's campaign, every one of her posts that she writes is about Trump... Or a quote retweet from someone else.
On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote: The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater.
I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down.
Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society.
We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way.
Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement.
I hear this a lot. Take the man with five positions on every issue and an unaligned social agenda instead of the woman that will reliably work to move things ever leftward. He might even deal damage to the public'a perception of political correctness to boot. He's not part of my movement, but at least he's not a part of the movement I despise.
I have less prospects on him stopping a social shift (politics can influence culture, but not here) because it's mainly outside the political sphere. His values and philosophy are mostly unfocused or missing ... wherever he thinks the best deal is or his gut feelings on the strength not weakness ... that's where he's going ala populist sail to the wind.
On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote: The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater.
I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down.
Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society.
We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way.
Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement. Either way, using classical rationalism won't lead you to a very meaningful picture of this election.
It is disturbing. People now feel, apparently including presidents of student societies, that it is okay to smear all Trump supporters as bigoted racists. Even the wearing of a hat makes someone feel deeply unsafe...its insane. I could never have imagined this happening five years ago. The irony being of course, that their "safe spaces" are completely hypocritical in that they create spaces where you don't feel safe to offer countering views, for fear of being labelled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, or any other word in the extreme left lexicon.
Building a wall with Mexico, and suggesting a temporary ban on Muslims because of the dangers posed by terrorism, has been misconstrued as a vision for a pure white America in which minorities are assaulted, jailed, or otherwise removed from the country. And anyone who dares question this narrative is threatened with assault, or actually assaulted.
Normally I don't support Trump because of his views on global warming, but these kinds of attacks make me extremely sympathetic for Trump voters. This kind of stuff would actually sway my vote (if I were American), because I would be increasingly worried that society around me is becoming more and more extremized and accepting of propaganda, and that we actually need someone to counter it and stand up to it.
On September 17 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote: Trump seems more about bringing disunity to the USA than unity. but you can want him to do whatever you like, as he surely ain't gonna deliver.
That's not what I see (I am someone who has seen every one of his speeches on the internet). Obviously I'm going to be biased, but I see a powerful message of unity in his speeches, what you see in the little snippets in media, obviously will be taken out of context, much like Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorable.
In my eyes, it's a complete shame of Hillary for being a useless politician that can't talk about anything good about herself, 95-99% of her campaign has become shitting on Trump... Like Obama said, don't we have something more meaningful to talk about?
just because he talks about unity sometimes (which is good) doesn't mean he's actually producing it. He, like many politicians, says a whole lot of stuff, so people can pick and choose what they like. He says unity stuff sometime, but some very different stuff at other times. On the whole I'd say the effect is more one of division than unity. I've definitely got the impression of a decrease in unity as a result of him.
It is dumb of Hillary to try shitting on trump, insulting people isn't what hillary is good; she's a policy wonk, sure it's terribly boring, but it's still a better play than what she's doing.
One thing that is important to note is how the democrats don't have the same control over the media that they historically have had in presidential elections. The democratization and decentralization of the narrative is striking, which is allowing Trump to open up fronts against his opposition that were unavailable in previous elections. Of course, Trump also is unique in having sufficiently large balls to do the things that he has been doing.
On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote: The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater.
I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down.
Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society.
We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way.
Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement.
I hear this a lot. Take the man with five positions on every issue and an unaligned social agenda instead of the woman that will reliably work to move things ever leftward.
Funny you say, you definitely are exaggerating, but I think there's a lot of truth to it as well for a lot of people.
I absolutely despise the social left movement, and if what you were describing was true, and he was up against Hillary... Yeah, you know, I'd be a pretty big toss up for who I vote for.
But he also has pretty clear plans about immigration (being born in eastern europe this hits close to home), and economic protectionism (which during one of my degrees I've fought nail and tooth the theory we were meant to be taught, on a very liberal campus by US standards)... These 3 things together are by far and away enough for me to support Trump.
The fact that he doesn't care much for religion makes it much easier to like a republican is a big thing for me as well, I also believe firearm rights should be given, and I think the current system is fine, and I gave detailed explanations for that in the Gun Thread.
Now about his other views, I don't have a big opinion on the healthcare reform and veteran benefits, not educated enough in the industries. The only issue that I straight up disagree with him on is trying to tear down public schools. I also disagree with trying to tear down the EPA, but sadly if you want to fight for reduced environmental protections, you simply have to deny it, even if you believe in global warming. That's my interpretation from someone living under a new very democratic socialist government who thinks that the current environmental laws are not practical.
Nobody knows his tax reform ideas, child care reform, or just general economic distribution stuff. I have no opinion on the health care reform, I think the US is doing it very poorly, and I do think universal healthcare is better, but what the USbeen trying to do now is like a for-profit universal healthcare so it's stupid. Do I think Trump will fix it? Not really, but it's not a primary issue for me.
So as you see above, immigration, protectionism, and anti-SJW... My biggest topics I care about. immigration and anti-SJW is not economics, and protectionism is something I studied for a long time, and I think there's a lot of long-term benefit over short-term cost, so I'm all for it.
On September 17 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote: Trump seems more about bringing disunity to the USA than unity. but you can want him to do whatever you like, as he surely ain't gonna deliver.
That's not what I see (I am someone who has seen every one of his speeches on the internet). Obviously I'm going to be biased, but I see a powerful message of unity in his speeches, what you see in the little snippets in media, obviously will be taken out of context, much like Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorable.
In my eyes, it's a complete shame of Hillary for being a useless politician that can't talk about anything good about herself, 95-99% of her campaign has become shitting on Trump... Like Obama said, don't we have something more meaningful to talk about? Just look at Hillary's campaign, every one of her posts that she writes is about Trump... Or a quote retweet from someone else.
Unity if your white. That isn't what blacks, Hispanics or Arabs hear. They don't see unity under Trump.
On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote: The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater.
I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down.
Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society.
We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way.
Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement. Either way, using classical rationalism won't lead you to a very meaningful picture of this election.
It is disturbing. People now feel, apparently including presidents of student societies, that it is okay to smear all Trump supporters as bigoted racists. Even the wearing of a hat makes someone feel deeply unsafe...its insane. I could never have imagined this happening five years ago. The irony being of course, that their "safe spaces" are completely hypocritical in that they create spaces where you don't feel safe to offer countering views, for fear of being labelled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, or any other word in the extreme left lexicon.
Building a wall with Mexico, and suggesting a temporary ban on Muslims because of the dangers posed by terrorism, has been misconstrued as a vision for a pure white America in which minorities are assaulted, jailed, or otherwise removed from the country. And anyone who dares question this narrative is threatened with assault, or actually assaulted.
Normally I don't support Trump because of his views on global warming, but these kinds of attacks make me extremely sympathetic for Trump voters. This kind of stuff would actually sway my vote (if I were American), because I would be increasingly worried that society around me is becoming more and more extremized and accepting of propaganda, and that we actually need someone to counter it and stand up to it.
Good point. If a casual observer can look at Trump voters sympathetically and see what's called centrism or rationality as extremism, the field is ripe for change. In this election or future elections.
On September 17 2016 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: There's really no way for Trump to remove his birther stain and throw it on Clinton. Perpetuating the birther topic will only hurt him.
So far he has parlayed his birther stain into a free press conference and unflattering inquiries into Hillary. How is this hurting him?
Yeah I'm not seeing how this hurts Trump at all. Anyone who's bothered by his position on the birther stuff already made up their mind long ago. This just gets him a lot of free press coverage and makes a couple more of the people who already distrust Hillary distrust her slightly more.
I think it's stupid, but the media all kind of just played into Trump's hands on this one.
I'd give oBlade as Exhibit A here, if an ardent Trump follower was unaware of his position on the birther stuff I'm not sure everyone already knew about it and made up their mind
The claim is I didn't know Trump was a prominent birther...?
You've established you didn't know that he claimed the birth certificate was fake for all these years after 2011 (which was until today 'his position on the birther stuff').
And his claims that the birth certificate was fake plus his insinuantions that people were killed to keep this a secret are far more damning of his conspiratard tendencies than his pre-2011 birtherism which everyone knows of. Most people follow Trump and news of him far less than you and many of them will also not know of this since it was never huge news since the long form release. That's the basis of why I disagree with Yango that this can't hurt him at all.
I don't commit his tweets to memory but some of it rings a bell. What I know his that he has a history of talking about Obama's past, and the significance of that didn't change between 2011 and 2014. Same birtherism. Now, you seem to be saying that something that was a big deal at the time, him giving a bunch of speeches and going on TV shows asking about records and stoking suspicion, is now less of an issue than him desperately clinging to it later with some tweets and the charity reward for Obama's college applications that were certainly never archived. "Birther still sporadically birtherizing" wasn't news at the time for a reason.
He has consciously eschewed this business for his candidacy. Let's wait for the polls to see how big the group of people is that knew all about Trump's birtherism but won't stand for, well, whatever you're talking about (if anyone is even there to share old tweets at them).
On September 17 2016 10:21 Dan HH wrote: Are SJWs really that common in North America? I would have assumed most of you never even met one, let alone see it as society's number one issue
They are a myth, laced in mystery. To be bitched about on the internet.
On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote: The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater.
I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down.
Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society.
We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way.
Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement. Either way, using classical rationalism won't lead you to a very meaningful picture of this election.
It is disturbing. People now feel, apparently including presidents of student societies, that it is okay to smear all Trump supporters as bigoted racists. Even the wearing of a hat makes someone feel deeply unsafe...its insane. I could never have imagined this happening five years ago. The irony being of course, that their "safe spaces" are completely hypocritical in that they create spaces where you don't feel safe to offer countering views, for fear of being labelled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, or any other word in the extreme left lexicon.
Building a wall with Mexico, and suggesting a temporary ban on Muslims because of the dangers posed by terrorism, has been misconstrued as a vision for a pure white America in which minorities are assaulted, jailed, or otherwise removed from the country. And anyone who dares question this narrative is threatened with assault, or actually assaulted.
Normally I don't support Trump because of his views on global warming, but these kinds of attacks make me extremely sympathetic for Trump voters. This kind of stuff would actually sway my vote (if I were American), because I would be increasingly worried that society around me is becoming more and more extremized and accepting of propaganda, and that we actually need someone to counter it and stand up to it.
Good point. If a casual observer can look at Trump voters sympathetically and see what's called centrism or rationality as extremism, the field is ripe for change. In this election or future elections.
The silent white majority can only be openly crapped on for so long before they start to take notice and act like their own special interest group as the minorities do. This is the inevitable, dangerous result of the past couple generations of liberal politics.
Well, we don't want them to become common enough to meet them. Regardless if trump wins or loses he has at least started a movement against them, and that is a success in my book.
On September 17 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote: Trump seems more about bringing disunity to the USA than unity. but you can want him to do whatever you like, as he surely ain't gonna deliver.
That's not what I see (I am someone who has seen every one of his speeches on the internet). Obviously I'm going to be biased, but I see a powerful message of unity in his speeches, what you see in the little snippets in media, obviously will be taken out of context, much like Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorable.
In my eyes, it's a complete shame of Hillary for being a useless politician that can't talk about anything good about herself, 95-99% of her campaign has become shitting on Trump... Like Obama said, don't we have something more meaningful to talk about?
just because he talks about unity sometimes (which is good) doesn't mean he's actually producing it. He, like many politicians, says a whole lot of stuff, so people can pick and choose what they like. He says unity stuff sometime, but some very different stuff at other times. On the whole I'd say the effect is more one of division than unity. I've definitely got the impression of a decrease in unity as a result of him.
It is dumb of Hillary to try shitting on trump, insulting people isn't what hillary is good; she's a policy wonk, sure it's terribly boring, but it's still a better play than what she's doing.
Yes, you're right, especially about saying the whole lot of stuff so people can choose what they like.
To me, as someone white who is surrounded by a lot of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people.. Trump seems like a fairly easy person to get behind. That's because these people assimilate fairly well, and are all about what you are able to do. There aren't these special kinds of bonds, they value you as a person based on what you can do.
To me, I'd think a lot of Mexicans are the same as well. There was a couple polls that showed that Trump is 35% with English speaking hispanics and only 10% with the bilingual/spanish speaking ones. I don't have it in front of me, so pardon me if the numbers are a tad off, but I think this is a fairly good indication that the people who get into the groove of American culture can get to like Trump. 35% isn't so bad given that 15%~ are undecided/voting for other people... And not only that, they have so much pressure from other hispanics to not like him, personally I think people can get behind liking Trump quite easily.
There aren't very many Black people where I live, so I can't really comment on how well he'd be able to get along with Black people, it is a bit of a different culture. I think the biggest thing is if you keep telling yourself that Trump is some awful person, you'll always nitpick bad things, and you'll never like him.
On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote: The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater.
I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down.
Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society.
We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way.
Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement. Either way, using classical rationalism won't lead you to a very meaningful picture of this election.
It is disturbing. People now feel, apparently including presidents of student societies, that it is okay to smear all Trump supporters as bigoted racists. Even the wearing of a hat makes someone feel deeply unsafe...its insane. I could never have imagined this happening five years ago. The irony being of course, that their "safe spaces" are completely hypocritical in that they create spaces where you don't feel safe to offer countering views, for fear of being labelled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, or any other word in the extreme left lexicon.
Building a wall with Mexico, and suggesting a temporary ban on Muslims because of the dangers posed by terrorism, has been misconstrued as a vision for a pure white America in which minorities are assaulted, jailed, or otherwise removed from the country. And anyone who dares question this narrative is threatened with assault, or actually assaulted.
Normally I don't support Trump because of his views on global warming, but these kinds of attacks make me extremely sympathetic for Trump voters. This kind of stuff would actually sway my vote (if I were American), because I would be increasingly worried that society around me is becoming more and more extremized and accepting of propaganda, and that we actually need someone to counter it and stand up to it.
You clearly haven't seen bad encounters with his supporters. Believe me, they give just as much, if not more of what they take. This sympathy is just part of their narrative that certain parts of the right have been doing for years now: playing the victim standing up for "the good fight". The poor oppressed majority.
They are really not that big of a deal, at all. I live in one of the most liberal sections of the country, filled with colleges. They are not a problem. They are only a problem if someone needs to be while a full asshole all the time and gets really offended when people tell them to stop.
On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote: The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater.
I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down.
Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society.
We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way.
Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement. Either way, using classical rationalism won't lead you to a very meaningful picture of this election.
It is disturbing. People now feel, apparently including presidents of student societies, that it is okay to smear all Trump supporters as bigoted racists. Even the wearing of a hat makes someone feel deeply unsafe...its insane. I could never have imagined this happening five years ago. The irony being of course, that their "safe spaces" are completely hypocritical in that they create spaces where you don't feel safe to offer countering views, for fear of being labelled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, or any other word in the extreme left lexicon.
Building a wall with Mexico, and suggesting a temporary ban on Muslims because of the dangers posed by terrorism, has been misconstrued as a vision for a pure white America in which minorities are assaulted, jailed, or otherwise removed from the country. And anyone who dares question this narrative is threatened with assault, or actually assaulted.
Normally I don't support Trump because of his views on global warming, but these kinds of attacks make me extremely sympathetic for Trump voters. This kind of stuff would actually sway my vote (if I were American), because I would be increasingly worried that society around me is becoming more and more extremized and accepting of propaganda, and that we actually need someone to counter it and stand up to it.
You clearly haven't seen bad encounters with his supporters. Believe me, they give just as much, if not more of what they take. This sympathy is just part of their narrative that certain parts of the right have been doing for years now: playing the victim standing up for "the good fight".
They desire a "safe space" for their beliefs. And that safe space is "all of America, coast to cost"
On September 17 2016 10:27 biology]major wrote: Well, we don't want them to become common enough to meet them. Regardless if trump wins or loses he has at least started a movement against them, and that is a success in my book.
There was a movement against them long before Trump. Not sure how he gets credit for something he had nothing to do with but that's the Trump way I suppose.
On September 17 2016 10:21 Dan HH wrote: Are SJWs really that common in North America? I would have assumed most of you never even met one, let alone see it as society's number one issue
I have met quite a few actually, but it's not the SJW itself that's the problem, of course that's a tiny % of the population. The SJW term I use is a blanket term for this very socially liberal left younger population that has been brewing. My girlfriend took this woman's studies class and holy shit, it fucked her views up so much - for about 6 months, and then she slowly started to see how it's all some silly fantasy (in my opinion and hers), and now things are back to normal.
(I like to people show people this video)
(yes, there's some bias to is as well, and I have a bit of bias to myself on the issue, but sexism is even smaller to non-existent in Western Canada)
So the radical feminism or whatever you want to call it is only one of these shifts, but it's becoming a lot more prevalent in more and more aspects of life. In the same way how yes, the number of terrorists isn't necessarily the troubling thing about Muslim populations, but it's the fact that 20-60% (numbers are all over the place) of Muslims would prefer to have Sharia law in their countries that is troubling, etc.
edit: By the way, I hope it's fairly well known that gaming communities in general are quite further right leaning, so naturally you don't see a fairly prevalent view of a woman on a university campus in social sciences. My engineering colleagues were far more on the same page as me compared to in my B.A. in Econ... And even then Economics is still one of the most right leaning arts degrees in terms of demographic of students spread.
On September 17 2016 09:38 Doodsmack wrote: The conservative posters argued so fervently the position that "hey look Hillary did something bad here, and you won't admit it, so let's talk about that", but the fact remains that the severity of Trump's involvement in birtherism was clearly much greater. And by much greater, I mean much much much greater.
I think it's clear that a status-quo "rational" candidate is looked at very differently than a candidate that is all about tearing it down.
Naturally Hillary is held to a higher standard, and it was very smart of Trump to play his cards in such a way to be in this position. I don't want Trump for being some genius policy freak, I want him to stop the social shift in SJW (like this girl in my city yesterday), political correctness, and bring unity to the USA... As well as a person that I can agree with from a philosophy and values standpoint, regardless of what short-comings he has as a person. Hence I could care less about what Trump says. So yes, he's higher risk, but I'm not afraid of what a President (not a monarch) can do in 4 years compared to my dislike of the current movement in society.
We are here to stay, Donald Trump all the way.
Seriously though, I feel like any person who tries to compare Trump and Hillary side by side has no idea about this election whatsoever, or at least the Donald Trump movement. Either way, using classical rationalism won't lead you to a very meaningful picture of this election.
It is disturbing. People now feel, apparently including presidents of student societies, that it is okay to smear all Trump supporters as bigoted racists. Even the wearing of a hat makes someone feel deeply unsafe...its insane. I could never have imagined this happening five years ago. The irony being of course, that their "safe spaces" are completely hypocritical in that they create spaces where you don't feel safe to offer countering views, for fear of being labelled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, or any other word in the extreme left lexicon.
Building a wall with Mexico, and suggesting a temporary ban on Muslims because of the dangers posed by terrorism, has been misconstrued as a vision for a pure white America in which minorities are assaulted, jailed, or otherwise removed from the country. And anyone who dares question this narrative is threatened with assault, or actually assaulted.
Normally I don't support Trump because of his views on global warming, but these kinds of attacks make me extremely sympathetic for Trump voters. This kind of stuff would actually sway my vote (if I were American), because I would be increasingly worried that society around me is becoming more and more extremized and accepting of propaganda, and that we actually need someone to counter it and stand up to it.
Good point. If a casual observer can look at Trump voters sympathetically and see what's called centrism or rationality as extremism, the field is ripe for change. In this election or future elections.
The silent white majority can only be openly crapped on for so long before they start to take notice and act like their own special interest group as the minorities do. This is the inevitable, dangerous result of the past couple generations of liberal politics.
I'm pretty sure the silent white majority isn't actually a majority, not even among white people. But the terminology is interesting, because rather than accepting that they're a loud minority, which those people can't fathom because they still believe they're the only ones entitled to a democratic opinion, they go with the silent majority narrative
This is pretty funny because every minority movement, no matter how radical, has no problem to accept the basic premise that they are indeed small in numbers. Only the white man cannot understand that he might actually be outnumbered. If his voice is not heard it must be the rigged system, or the strong opposition. It can't possibly be the case that nobody cares
EPT
