|
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 September 26 2016 03:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2016 03:15 zlefin wrote:
legal -> It's not anywhere near many either; that's just giving too mcuh credit to the smaller number of idiot loudmouths.
and even at the time; people noted that while there were similarities, there were also a lot of differences, and he wasn't hitler grade.
so no, you'roe being needlessly partisan I think; and misrepresenting the other side.
not sure what your point is about NATO; so can't really respond to it past trump screwed up horribly there and hurt the us already just as a candidate. The comparison was made. The analogy was well-liked by a lot of the anti-Trump crowd, including those in this thread. It's not just being partisan, it's the narrative that was actively pushed by a lot of people. Incidentally a lot of those people, in fact the vast majority, come from the left; acknowledging that isn't partisan. The entire idea of Trump, about NATO being obsolete and that the US should be more protectionist, touched as many nerves as his more aggressive plans for scaling down the alliance. Not so much with the population, which is largely sympathetic to that viewpoint, but with those in power who stand to gain from the further existence of NATO in its current, aggressive and interventionist, form. i agree the comparison was made; but quite a few noted the inaptness of it; and most agreed it's nowhere near hitler level. they weren't pushing a narrative of it being the second coming of hitler; they were making comparisons to some troublesome aspects. The problem with NATO is that Trump, instead of saying something reasonable on the topic; pushed for oath-breaking. also, nato isn't that aggressive or interventionist. (and of course the lesser issue of poor understanding of actual cost/benefits, geopolitical analysis, and generally being ignorant on the topic).
I'd like to add that if NATO is interventionist, it's because the US pushes those interventions. I guess Yugoslavia and Libya would be the exceptions, but every other war that involved NATO over the last 40 years would be because the US went in as one of the principal aggressors. The one you actually want to drop if you're against world police is UN peacekeeping missions...
|
On September 26 2016 04:31 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 03:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 03:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 26 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump isn't the super-Hitler that many of his detractors, including some of the most vocal liberals in here, make him out to be. He is problematic in that he is prone to lying and hyperbole, but he does also address a lot of genuine issues that the mainstream political establishment tends to completely write off. Their response to him is in part a fear of how he would upend a lot of ideas currently being pushed, like trade and interventionism, that have colossal support from the leadership but not so much from the population.
Doesn't mean he'd make a great president though. Personally I don't see this as the right way to effect positive change. Trump does address a lot of issues that need to be addressed that the Left is scared to talk about. The problem is that Trump addresses them in all the wrong ways. Maybe to you. But Trump know that this is the only way to win the election. The presidency is a race to see who have the most interesting storyline and have been for years. Yeah, I agree here. I know on the surface Trump seems crazy with how he says things... But I really do wonder how another candidate could pull the stuff he's pulling out, and getting people to fight for these issues. To me it just seems tough to run a campaign that is against free immigration and free market economies with a "stronger together, coexistence, leave nobody behind" type of message. Either way, what I see as absolutely true is that Trump has done such an amazing job uniting all his supporters behind him. On the other hand, Hillary has some seems to have many different kinds in high quantities, from Bernie bros, SJW type, anti-Trump, fiscal conservatives, and many different minority communities that have completely different interests. Meanwhile to me Trump has two groups - people like me, and most of us here that support him on TL, and then the very traditional and religious population. Of course he has some trouble groups, like racists and whatnot, but Hillary has her fair share as well. I think that Trump supporters feel that if Trump gets into presidency, there will be changes. While with Hillary, not much will change and America at its current state CLEARLY needs change.
I guess that's accurate. It's just that the non-Trump supporters disagree that ANY change is necessarily better than the status quo, and seriously believe Trump's change would be a definite change for the worse.
|
On September 26 2016 05:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Sunday told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if elected, the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the campaign said, marking a potential dramatic shift in U.S. policy on the issue.
[...]
During the closed-door meeting, the campaign said that Trump agreed with Netanyahu that peace in the Middle East could only be achieved when "the Palestinians renounce hatred and violence and accept Israel as a Jewish State."
According to a readout of the meeting from the campaign, the two discussed "at length" Israel's border fence, cited by Trump in reference to his own controversial immigration policies, which include building a wall on the U.S.- Mexico border and temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country. Yahoo
Non-interventionist my ass
|
On September 26 2016 06:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 05:20 Doodsmack wrote:Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Sunday told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if elected, the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the campaign said, marking a potential dramatic shift in U.S. policy on the issue.
[...]
During the closed-door meeting, the campaign said that Trump agreed with Netanyahu that peace in the Middle East could only be achieved when "the Palestinians renounce hatred and violence and accept Israel as a Jewish State."
According to a readout of the meeting from the campaign, the two discussed "at length" Israel's border fence, cited by Trump in reference to his own controversial immigration policies, which include building a wall on the U.S.- Mexico border and temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country. Yahoo Non-interventionist my ass
He won't get involved unless he has to. And he has a secret plan for when it is necessary for the US to get involved. Just like his secret plan to beat ISIS. And Nixon's secret plan to stop Vietnam.
|
On September 26 2016 06:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 03:28 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2016 03:15 zlefin wrote:
legal -> It's not anywhere near many either; that's just giving too mcuh credit to the smaller number of idiot loudmouths.
and even at the time; people noted that while there were similarities, there were also a lot of differences, and he wasn't hitler grade.
so no, you'roe being needlessly partisan I think; and misrepresenting the other side.
not sure what your point is about NATO; so can't really respond to it past trump screwed up horribly there and hurt the us already just as a candidate. The comparison was made. The analogy was well-liked by a lot of the anti-Trump crowd, including those in this thread. It's not just being partisan, it's the narrative that was actively pushed by a lot of people. Incidentally a lot of those people, in fact the vast majority, come from the left; acknowledging that isn't partisan. The entire idea of Trump, about NATO being obsolete and that the US should be more protectionist, touched as many nerves as his more aggressive plans for scaling down the alliance. Not so much with the population, which is largely sympathetic to that viewpoint, but with those in power who stand to gain from the further existence of NATO in its current, aggressive and interventionist, form. i agree the comparison was made; but quite a few noted the inaptness of it; and most agreed it's nowhere near hitler level. they weren't pushing a narrative of it being the second coming of hitler; they were making comparisons to some troublesome aspects. The problem with NATO is that Trump, instead of saying something reasonable on the topic; pushed for oath-breaking. also, nato isn't that aggressive or interventionist. (and of course the lesser issue of poor understanding of actual cost/benefits, geopolitical analysis, and generally being ignorant on the topic). I'd like to add that if NATO is interventionist, it's because the US pushes those interventions. I guess Yugoslavia and Libya would be the exceptions, but every other war that involved NATO over the last 40 years would be because the US went in as one of the principal aggressors. The one you actually want to drop if you're against world police is UN peacekeeping missions...
The NATO alliance agenda is definitely very US-centric, yes. It's "US and others" rather than an alliance among equals.
|
On September 26 2016 05:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Sunday told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if elected, the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the campaign said, marking a potential dramatic shift in U.S. policy on the issue.
[...]
During the closed-door meeting, the campaign said that Trump agreed with Netanyahu that peace in the Middle East could only be achieved when "the Palestinians renounce hatred and violence and accept Israel as a Jewish State."
According to a readout of the meeting from the campaign, the two discussed "at length" Israel's border fence, cited by Trump in reference to his own controversial immigration policies, which include building a wall on the U.S.- Mexico border and temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country. Yahoo
OK, so he has zero clue about the situation. Add the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the long list of themes in which he's incompetent.
|
On September 26 2016 05:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 03:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 03:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 26 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump isn't the super-Hitler that many of his detractors, including some of the most vocal liberals in here, make him out to be. He is problematic in that he is prone to lying and hyperbole, but he does also address a lot of genuine issues that the mainstream political establishment tends to completely write off. Their response to him is in part a fear of how he would upend a lot of ideas currently being pushed, like trade and interventionism, that have colossal support from the leadership but not so much from the population.
Doesn't mean he'd make a great president though. Personally I don't see this as the right way to effect positive change. Trump does address a lot of issues that need to be addressed that the Left is scared to talk about. The problem is that Trump addresses them in all the wrong ways. Maybe to you. But Trump know that this is the only way to win the election. The presidency is a race to see who have the most interesting storyline and have been for years. Yeah, I agree here. I know on the surface Trump seems crazy with how he says things... But I really do wonder how another candidate could pull the stuff he's pulling out, and getting people to fight for these issues. To me it just seems tough to run a campaign that is against free immigration and free market economies with a "stronger together, coexistence, leave nobody behind" type of message. Either way, what I see as absolutely true is that Trump has done such an amazing job uniting all his supporters behind him. On the other hand, Hillary has some seems to have many different kinds in high quantities, from Bernie bros, SJW type, anti-Trump, fiscal conservatives, and many different minority communities that have completely different interests. Meanwhile to me Trump has two groups - people like me, and most of us here that support him on TL, and then the very traditional and religious population. Of course he has some trouble groups, like racists and whatnot, but Hillary has her fair share as well. Well put. The way he communicates his message is off-putting to people with a different idea of how presidential candidates should operate. The way he's put big issues back on the table is stellar. Free market types need to re-argue why tariffs are a bad thing (we do have ~2k in effect now). The open borders crowd has gone too far towards all immigration is good immigration. I really dislike the man carrying the message, but I can't deny that he brought back the Overton window in positive ways.
So you guys are in agreement then: Trump isn't actually racist, he just says racist shit to bring attention to legitimate issues. Say, what was the legitimate issue on this one?
Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.
|
Canada9859 Posts
You know what grinds my gears?
"A Washington Post-ABC News poll released early Sunday has Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton leading Republican candidate Donald Trump by 2 points among those who said they'd likely cast a vote in the November general election. The poll's margin of error is 4.5 percent, meaning the two candidates are virtually tied."
Has nobody in the media taken a statistics course?
Like fuck, you might as well make the confidence interval 99.995% instead of 95%, and they will be "virtually tied" even if one of them is leading 60-30.
|
Canada9859 Posts
On September 26 2016 06:49 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 05:33 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2016 03:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 03:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 26 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump isn't the super-Hitler that many of his detractors, including some of the most vocal liberals in here, make him out to be. He is problematic in that he is prone to lying and hyperbole, but he does also address a lot of genuine issues that the mainstream political establishment tends to completely write off. Their response to him is in part a fear of how he would upend a lot of ideas currently being pushed, like trade and interventionism, that have colossal support from the leadership but not so much from the population.
Doesn't mean he'd make a great president though. Personally I don't see this as the right way to effect positive change. Trump does address a lot of issues that need to be addressed that the Left is scared to talk about. The problem is that Trump addresses them in all the wrong ways. Maybe to you. But Trump know that this is the only way to win the election. The presidency is a race to see who have the most interesting storyline and have been for years. Yeah, I agree here. I know on the surface Trump seems crazy with how he says things... But I really do wonder how another candidate could pull the stuff he's pulling out, and getting people to fight for these issues. To me it just seems tough to run a campaign that is against free immigration and free market economies with a "stronger together, coexistence, leave nobody behind" type of message. Either way, what I see as absolutely true is that Trump has done such an amazing job uniting all his supporters behind him. On the other hand, Hillary has some seems to have many different kinds in high quantities, from Bernie bros, SJW type, anti-Trump, fiscal conservatives, and many different minority communities that have completely different interests. Meanwhile to me Trump has two groups - people like me, and most of us here that support him on TL, and then the very traditional and religious population. Of course he has some trouble groups, like racists and whatnot, but Hillary has her fair share as well. Well put. The way he communicates his message is off-putting to people with a different idea of how presidential candidates should operate. The way he's put big issues back on the table is stellar. Free market types need to re-argue why tariffs are a bad thing (we do have ~2k in effect now). The open borders crowd has gone too far towards all immigration is good immigration. I really dislike the man carrying the message, but I can't deny that he brought back the Overton window in positive ways. So you guys are in agreement then: Trump isn't actually racist, he just says racist shit to bring attention to legitimate issues. Say, what was the legitimate issue on this one? Show nested quote +Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.
You're putting this much weight on a statement made in 1994, a time when Hillary and 95% politicians (or more?) did not believe homosexuals deserve equal treatment? A time when a much larger chunk of the populace was far more mildly racist than it is today.
Just putting it more into context, to remove some of the bias. I don't agree with what he said, but I think his view has had changed since then.
|
On September 26 2016 07:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 06:49 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2016 05:33 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2016 03:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 03:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 26 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump isn't the super-Hitler that many of his detractors, including some of the most vocal liberals in here, make him out to be. He is problematic in that he is prone to lying and hyperbole, but he does also address a lot of genuine issues that the mainstream political establishment tends to completely write off. Their response to him is in part a fear of how he would upend a lot of ideas currently being pushed, like trade and interventionism, that have colossal support from the leadership but not so much from the population.
Doesn't mean he'd make a great president though. Personally I don't see this as the right way to effect positive change. Trump does address a lot of issues that need to be addressed that the Left is scared to talk about. The problem is that Trump addresses them in all the wrong ways. Maybe to you. But Trump know that this is the only way to win the election. The presidency is a race to see who have the most interesting storyline and have been for years. Yeah, I agree here. I know on the surface Trump seems crazy with how he says things... But I really do wonder how another candidate could pull the stuff he's pulling out, and getting people to fight for these issues. To me it just seems tough to run a campaign that is against free immigration and free market economies with a "stronger together, coexistence, leave nobody behind" type of message. Either way, what I see as absolutely true is that Trump has done such an amazing job uniting all his supporters behind him. On the other hand, Hillary has some seems to have many different kinds in high quantities, from Bernie bros, SJW type, anti-Trump, fiscal conservatives, and many different minority communities that have completely different interests. Meanwhile to me Trump has two groups - people like me, and most of us here that support him on TL, and then the very traditional and religious population. Of course he has some trouble groups, like racists and whatnot, but Hillary has her fair share as well. Well put. The way he communicates his message is off-putting to people with a different idea of how presidential candidates should operate. The way he's put big issues back on the table is stellar. Free market types need to re-argue why tariffs are a bad thing (we do have ~2k in effect now). The open borders crowd has gone too far towards all immigration is good immigration. I really dislike the man carrying the message, but I can't deny that he brought back the Overton window in positive ways. So you guys are in agreement then: Trump isn't actually racist, he just says racist shit to bring attention to legitimate issues. Say, what was the legitimate issue on this one? Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. You're putting this much weight on a statement made in 1994, a time when Hillary and 95% politicians (or more?) did not believe homosexuals deserve equal treatment? A time when a much larger chunk of the populace was far more mildly racist than it is today. Just putting it more into context, to remove some of the bias. I don't agree with what he said, but I think his view has had changed since then.
I mean I'd heard the "it was a different time" argument before, but Jesus, I didn't realize how much the goalposts had moved. If he had said it in the 1950's I could see the "it was a different time" argument, but come on, 1994 is early enough we can excuse racism? What evidence is there that he's changed his mind? If he was any other 70+ year old, people would say "well, you know, they grew up in a different time and it's just so hard to unlearn those kinds of attitudes, especially at their age." But somehow Donald Trump went from
1994: overtly racist, thinks blacks are lazier and only Jews should be accountants
Some time in between: became enlightened, realized the errors of racism, didn't tell anyone
2015-2016: says overtly racist things, but totally doesn't believe them, he's just bringing attention to legitimate issues
Like, why not just admit he's probably racist but you don't care because you like his positions on trade policy or w/e?
|
Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President
When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican “rapists” flooding across the Southern border.
From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.
Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.
Source: New York Times Editorial Board
|
Canada9859 Posts
On September 26 2016 07:19 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 07:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 06:49 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2016 05:33 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2016 03:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 03:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 26 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump isn't the super-Hitler that many of his detractors, including some of the most vocal liberals in here, make him out to be. He is problematic in that he is prone to lying and hyperbole, but he does also address a lot of genuine issues that the mainstream political establishment tends to completely write off. Their response to him is in part a fear of how he would upend a lot of ideas currently being pushed, like trade and interventionism, that have colossal support from the leadership but not so much from the population.
Doesn't mean he'd make a great president though. Personally I don't see this as the right way to effect positive change. Trump does address a lot of issues that need to be addressed that the Left is scared to talk about. The problem is that Trump addresses them in all the wrong ways. Maybe to you. But Trump know that this is the only way to win the election. The presidency is a race to see who have the most interesting storyline and have been for years. Yeah, I agree here. I know on the surface Trump seems crazy with how he says things... But I really do wonder how another candidate could pull the stuff he's pulling out, and getting people to fight for these issues. To me it just seems tough to run a campaign that is against free immigration and free market economies with a "stronger together, coexistence, leave nobody behind" type of message. Either way, what I see as absolutely true is that Trump has done such an amazing job uniting all his supporters behind him. On the other hand, Hillary has some seems to have many different kinds in high quantities, from Bernie bros, SJW type, anti-Trump, fiscal conservatives, and many different minority communities that have completely different interests. Meanwhile to me Trump has two groups - people like me, and most of us here that support him on TL, and then the very traditional and religious population. Of course he has some trouble groups, like racists and whatnot, but Hillary has her fair share as well. Well put. The way he communicates his message is off-putting to people with a different idea of how presidential candidates should operate. The way he's put big issues back on the table is stellar. Free market types need to re-argue why tariffs are a bad thing (we do have ~2k in effect now). The open borders crowd has gone too far towards all immigration is good immigration. I really dislike the man carrying the message, but I can't deny that he brought back the Overton window in positive ways. So you guys are in agreement then: Trump isn't actually racist, he just says racist shit to bring attention to legitimate issues. Say, what was the legitimate issue on this one? Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. You're putting this much weight on a statement made in 1994, a time when Hillary and 95% politicians (or more?) did not believe homosexuals deserve equal treatment? A time when a much larger chunk of the populace was far more mildly racist than it is today. Just putting it more into context, to remove some of the bias. I don't agree with what he said, but I think his view has had changed since then. I mean I'd heard the "it was a different time" argument before, but Jesus, I didn't realize how much the goalposts had moved. If he had said it in the 1950's I could see the "it was a different time" argument, but come on, 1994 is early enough we can excuse racism? What evidence is there that he's changed his mind? If he was any other 70+ year old, people would say "well, you know, they grew up in a different time and it's just so hard to unlearn those kinds of attitudes, especially at their age." But somehow Donald Trump went from 1994: overtly racist, thinks blacks are lazier and only Jews should be accountants Some time in between: became enlightened, realized the errors of racism, didn't tell anyone 2015-2016: says overtly racist things, but totally doesn't believe them, he's just bringing attention to legitimate issues Like, why not just admit he's probably racist but you don't care because you like his positions on trade policy or w/e?
The reason why I don't think he's racist, or very minorly at most is because as a business man, and looking at his businesses, he judges the worth of an individual by what they are able to contribute, and hence what I would call based on merit.
Promoting many women to higher positions, and having quite a lot of hispanics working for him for example. I think it's something that's needed, of course not to the extent of what Hitler proposed, saying that disabled people aren't able to contribute anything, so we should kill them all... But to the extent where the hard working people get rewarded for what they do, instead of the social movement of how we're all special, you should love your body even if you're 300lb and morbidly obese, etc. That is something that speaks to me a lot, from my personal experiences, and something greatly needed to move the economy forward imo. Just little changes to how we view these things, possibly changing promotion structure in some government agencies, etc.
|
He has female and Hispanic employees is the "I have plenty of black friends" for CEOs.
|
On September 26 2016 07:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 07:19 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2016 07:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 06:49 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2016 05:33 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2016 03:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 03:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 26 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump isn't the super-Hitler that many of his detractors, including some of the most vocal liberals in here, make him out to be. He is problematic in that he is prone to lying and hyperbole, but he does also address a lot of genuine issues that the mainstream political establishment tends to completely write off. Their response to him is in part a fear of how he would upend a lot of ideas currently being pushed, like trade and interventionism, that have colossal support from the leadership but not so much from the population.
Doesn't mean he'd make a great president though. Personally I don't see this as the right way to effect positive change. Trump does address a lot of issues that need to be addressed that the Left is scared to talk about. The problem is that Trump addresses them in all the wrong ways. Maybe to you. But Trump know that this is the only way to win the election. The presidency is a race to see who have the most interesting storyline and have been for years. Yeah, I agree here. I know on the surface Trump seems crazy with how he says things... But I really do wonder how another candidate could pull the stuff he's pulling out, and getting people to fight for these issues. To me it just seems tough to run a campaign that is against free immigration and free market economies with a "stronger together, coexistence, leave nobody behind" type of message. Either way, what I see as absolutely true is that Trump has done such an amazing job uniting all his supporters behind him. On the other hand, Hillary has some seems to have many different kinds in high quantities, from Bernie bros, SJW type, anti-Trump, fiscal conservatives, and many different minority communities that have completely different interests. Meanwhile to me Trump has two groups - people like me, and most of us here that support him on TL, and then the very traditional and religious population. Of course he has some trouble groups, like racists and whatnot, but Hillary has her fair share as well. Well put. The way he communicates his message is off-putting to people with a different idea of how presidential candidates should operate. The way he's put big issues back on the table is stellar. Free market types need to re-argue why tariffs are a bad thing (we do have ~2k in effect now). The open borders crowd has gone too far towards all immigration is good immigration. I really dislike the man carrying the message, but I can't deny that he brought back the Overton window in positive ways. So you guys are in agreement then: Trump isn't actually racist, he just says racist shit to bring attention to legitimate issues. Say, what was the legitimate issue on this one? Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. You're putting this much weight on a statement made in 1994, a time when Hillary and 95% politicians (or more?) did not believe homosexuals deserve equal treatment? A time when a much larger chunk of the populace was far more mildly racist than it is today. Just putting it more into context, to remove some of the bias. I don't agree with what he said, but I think his view has had changed since then. I mean I'd heard the "it was a different time" argument before, but Jesus, I didn't realize how much the goalposts had moved. If he had said it in the 1950's I could see the "it was a different time" argument, but come on, 1994 is early enough we can excuse racism? What evidence is there that he's changed his mind? If he was any other 70+ year old, people would say "well, you know, they grew up in a different time and it's just so hard to unlearn those kinds of attitudes, especially at their age." But somehow Donald Trump went from 1994: overtly racist, thinks blacks are lazier and only Jews should be accountants Some time in between: became enlightened, realized the errors of racism, didn't tell anyone 2015-2016: says overtly racist things, but totally doesn't believe them, he's just bringing attention to legitimate issues Like, why not just admit he's probably racist but you don't care because you like his positions on trade policy or w/e? The reason why I don't think he's racist, or very minorly at most is because as a business man, and looking at his businesses, he judges the worth of an individual by what they are able to contribute, and hence what I would call based on merit. Promoting many women to higher positions, and having quite a lot of hispanics working for him for example. I think it's something that's needed, of course not to the extent of what Hitler proposed, saying that disabled people aren't able to contribute anything, so we should kill them all... But to the extent where the hard working people get rewarded for what they do, instead of the social movement of how we're all special, you should love your body even if you're 300lb and morbidly obese, etc. That is something that speaks to me a lot, from my personal experiences, and something greatly needed to move the economy forward imo. Just little changes to how we view these things, possibly changing promotion structure in some government agencies, etc.
?!? Was I the only one who didn't get at all that part?
|
On September 26 2016 07:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 07:19 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2016 07:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 06:49 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2016 05:33 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2016 03:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 03:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 26 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump isn't the super-Hitler that many of his detractors, including some of the most vocal liberals in here, make him out to be. He is problematic in that he is prone to lying and hyperbole, but he does also address a lot of genuine issues that the mainstream political establishment tends to completely write off. Their response to him is in part a fear of how he would upend a lot of ideas currently being pushed, like trade and interventionism, that have colossal support from the leadership but not so much from the population.
Doesn't mean he'd make a great president though. Personally I don't see this as the right way to effect positive change. Trump does address a lot of issues that need to be addressed that the Left is scared to talk about. The problem is that Trump addresses them in all the wrong ways. Maybe to you. But Trump know that this is the only way to win the election. The presidency is a race to see who have the most interesting storyline and have been for years. Yeah, I agree here. I know on the surface Trump seems crazy with how he says things... But I really do wonder how another candidate could pull the stuff he's pulling out, and getting people to fight for these issues. To me it just seems tough to run a campaign that is against free immigration and free market economies with a "stronger together, coexistence, leave nobody behind" type of message. Either way, what I see as absolutely true is that Trump has done such an amazing job uniting all his supporters behind him. On the other hand, Hillary has some seems to have many different kinds in high quantities, from Bernie bros, SJW type, anti-Trump, fiscal conservatives, and many different minority communities that have completely different interests. Meanwhile to me Trump has two groups - people like me, and most of us here that support him on TL, and then the very traditional and religious population. Of course he has some trouble groups, like racists and whatnot, but Hillary has her fair share as well. Well put. The way he communicates his message is off-putting to people with a different idea of how presidential candidates should operate. The way he's put big issues back on the table is stellar. Free market types need to re-argue why tariffs are a bad thing (we do have ~2k in effect now). The open borders crowd has gone too far towards all immigration is good immigration. I really dislike the man carrying the message, but I can't deny that he brought back the Overton window in positive ways. So you guys are in agreement then: Trump isn't actually racist, he just says racist shit to bring attention to legitimate issues. Say, what was the legitimate issue on this one? Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. You're putting this much weight on a statement made in 1994, a time when Hillary and 95% politicians (or more?) did not believe homosexuals deserve equal treatment? A time when a much larger chunk of the populace was far more mildly racist than it is today. Just putting it more into context, to remove some of the bias. I don't agree with what he said, but I think his view has had changed since then. I mean I'd heard the "it was a different time" argument before, but Jesus, I didn't realize how much the goalposts had moved. If he had said it in the 1950's I could see the "it was a different time" argument, but come on, 1994 is early enough we can excuse racism? What evidence is there that he's changed his mind? If he was any other 70+ year old, people would say "well, you know, they grew up in a different time and it's just so hard to unlearn those kinds of attitudes, especially at their age." But somehow Donald Trump went from 1994: overtly racist, thinks blacks are lazier and only Jews should be accountants Some time in between: became enlightened, realized the errors of racism, didn't tell anyone 2015-2016: says overtly racist things, but totally doesn't believe them, he's just bringing attention to legitimate issues Like, why not just admit he's probably racist but you don't care because you like his positions on trade policy or w/e? The reason why I don't think he's racist, or very minorly at most is because as a business man, and looking at his businesses, he judges the worth of an individual by what they are able to contribute, and hence what I would call based on merit. Promoting many women to higher positions, and having quite a lot of hispanics working for him for example. I think it's something that's needed, of course not to the extent of what Hitler proposed, saying that disabled people aren't able to contribute anything, so we should kill them all... But to the extent where the hard working people get rewarded for what they do, instead of the social movement of how we're all special, you should love your body even if you're 300lb and morbidly obese, etc. That is something that speaks to me a lot, from my personal experiences, and something greatly needed to move the economy forward imo. Just little changes to how we view these things, possibly changing promotion structure in some government agencies, etc.
So are the white supremacist groups who have publicly endorsed Trump wrong about him?
|
On September 26 2016 07:33 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 07:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 07:19 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2016 07:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 06:49 ChristianS wrote:On September 26 2016 05:33 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2016 03:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 03:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 26 2016 02:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump isn't the super-Hitler that many of his detractors, including some of the most vocal liberals in here, make him out to be. He is problematic in that he is prone to lying and hyperbole, but he does also address a lot of genuine issues that the mainstream political establishment tends to completely write off. Their response to him is in part a fear of how he would upend a lot of ideas currently being pushed, like trade and interventionism, that have colossal support from the leadership but not so much from the population.
Doesn't mean he'd make a great president though. Personally I don't see this as the right way to effect positive change. Trump does address a lot of issues that need to be addressed that the Left is scared to talk about. The problem is that Trump addresses them in all the wrong ways. Maybe to you. But Trump know that this is the only way to win the election. The presidency is a race to see who have the most interesting storyline and have been for years. Yeah, I agree here. I know on the surface Trump seems crazy with how he says things... But I really do wonder how another candidate could pull the stuff he's pulling out, and getting people to fight for these issues. To me it just seems tough to run a campaign that is against free immigration and free market economies with a "stronger together, coexistence, leave nobody behind" type of message. Either way, what I see as absolutely true is that Trump has done such an amazing job uniting all his supporters behind him. On the other hand, Hillary has some seems to have many different kinds in high quantities, from Bernie bros, SJW type, anti-Trump, fiscal conservatives, and many different minority communities that have completely different interests. Meanwhile to me Trump has two groups - people like me, and most of us here that support him on TL, and then the very traditional and religious population. Of course he has some trouble groups, like racists and whatnot, but Hillary has her fair share as well. Well put. The way he communicates his message is off-putting to people with a different idea of how presidential candidates should operate. The way he's put big issues back on the table is stellar. Free market types need to re-argue why tariffs are a bad thing (we do have ~2k in effect now). The open borders crowd has gone too far towards all immigration is good immigration. I really dislike the man carrying the message, but I can't deny that he brought back the Overton window in positive ways. So you guys are in agreement then: Trump isn't actually racist, he just says racist shit to bring attention to legitimate issues. Say, what was the legitimate issue on this one? Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. You're putting this much weight on a statement made in 1994, a time when Hillary and 95% politicians (or more?) did not believe homosexuals deserve equal treatment? A time when a much larger chunk of the populace was far more mildly racist than it is today. Just putting it more into context, to remove some of the bias. I don't agree with what he said, but I think his view has had changed since then. I mean I'd heard the "it was a different time" argument before, but Jesus, I didn't realize how much the goalposts had moved. If he had said it in the 1950's I could see the "it was a different time" argument, but come on, 1994 is early enough we can excuse racism? What evidence is there that he's changed his mind? If he was any other 70+ year old, people would say "well, you know, they grew up in a different time and it's just so hard to unlearn those kinds of attitudes, especially at their age." But somehow Donald Trump went from 1994: overtly racist, thinks blacks are lazier and only Jews should be accountants Some time in between: became enlightened, realized the errors of racism, didn't tell anyone 2015-2016: says overtly racist things, but totally doesn't believe them, he's just bringing attention to legitimate issues Like, why not just admit he's probably racist but you don't care because you like his positions on trade policy or w/e? The reason why I don't think he's racist, or very minorly at most is because as a business man, and looking at his businesses, he judges the worth of an individual by what they are able to contribute, and hence what I would call based on merit. Promoting many women to higher positions, and having quite a lot of hispanics working for him for example. I think it's something that's needed, of course not to the extent of what Hitler proposed, saying that disabled people aren't able to contribute anything, so we should kill them all... But to the extent where the hard working people get rewarded for what they do, instead of the social movement of how we're all special, you should love your body even if you're 300lb and morbidly obese, etc. That is something that speaks to me a lot, from my personal experiences, and something greatly needed to move the economy forward imo. Just little changes to how we view these things, possibly changing promotion structure in some government agencies, etc. ?!? Was I the only one who didn't get at all that part?
Yeah, that is some serious lack of reasoned thinking right there, wow. Jumping from one to the other without the slightest of provocations, and there's even a Hitler in there for good measure!
|
He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
|
It's the argument I hear on the internet, we need to do something about the drags on society to increase efficiency. Of course these arguments are made by people assuming they and no one they care about will be part of the "fix". Like back in the 50s when we were sterilizing the mentally ill and handicapped.
Pure meritocracy.
|
The role of government isn't to force people to be equal in society and you're not Hitler or advocating for sterilization (despite what Plansix thinks) for saying it shouldn't be.
|
On September 26 2016 07:40 Godwrath wrote:
He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
Yeah, and then Hitler and morbid obesirty randomly appeared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
