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 07:40 Godwrath wrote: He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
Yeah, except there is solid data that a more diverse work place is more productive and has fewer HR problems. I mostly hear the "merit over gender" argument from folks that are in a profession that is already dominated by one gender.
On September 26 2016 07:43 oBlade wrote: 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.
The coming from the guy who would ask of a man in a KKK mask burning a cross was really racist. That you would need more proof.
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?
I don't exactly know what you want?
There are two candidates to endorse. Like someone mentioned previously, it's hella fucking stupid. You either say, we don't want this guy's endorsement, just as Trump did with David Duke, and be done with it. There's only two parties, what more can he do? There's bad apples, the insane SJW, Black Lives Matter, on the Hillary side, as well as on the Donald Trump side.
Look at polls that compare how racist Trump and Hillary supporters are. I remember looking at some polls a few times back, and it's roughly like 30-50% more Trump supporters are racist than Hillary's supporters, it's not that huge of a difference. I can complain about how a lot of Bernie people think completely utopian and are oblivious to the world around them, you're just trying to shit talk to bad of the Republicans without looking at the Democrats.
Trump isn't calling out 25% of the US population as human trash like Hillary did for example.
The energy that Trump brings is unlike anything I've seen, on par with what I've seen from the Reagan videos. This is the kind of American patriotism that's needed.
On September 26 2016 07:43 oBlade wrote: 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.
The coming from the guy who would ask of a man in a KKK mask burning a cross was really racist. That you would need more proof.
On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
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!
Oh yes, I mentioned Hitler because it's an example that everyone in this thread will be familiar with, automatically my argument is void.
It's the left who is always so eager to bring up Hitler and compare him to Trump, with is laughable.
To make it simple, it's exactly what Godwrath said "He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like", which is why Trump is more progressive than most Republicans, and doesn't use the identity politics crap that we've seen the Democrats use.
Just go through his last 5-10 speeches, so little mention of people based on color, sexuality, gender... I'm telling you guys, it's a message of pride, unity, and triumph.
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 as a businessman, was it not racist to deliberately discriminate against blacks in his apartment buildings? Assuming those businesses were profitable (and he's such a good businessman, of course, why wouldn't they be), there must have been a good business reason to lie to black would-be tenants to say there were no openings, or to mark their applications with a "C" (for colored) so people would know to deny the application.
On September 26 2016 07:40 Godwrath wrote: He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
Yeah, except there is solid data that a more diverse work place is more productive and has fewer HR problems. I mostly hear the "merit over gender" argument from folks that are in a profession that is already dominated by one gender.
Then show it to him, and by extension to the rest of us (even tho i already agree with you). This is a discussion thread, not a "be snarky as fuck" whenever you are presented with an opinion you disagree with.
On September 26 2016 03:10 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
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?
I don't exactly know what you want?
There are two candidates to endorse. Like someone mentioned previously, it's hella fucking stupid. You either say, we don't want this guy's endorsement, just as Trump did with David Duke, and be done with it. There's only two parties, what more can he do? There's bad apples, the insane SJW, Black Lives Matter, on the Hillary side, as well as on the Donald Trump side.
Are you putting an equal sign between white supremacists and BLM? + Show Spoiler +
On September 26 2016 07:40 Godwrath wrote: He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
Yeah, except there is solid data that a more diverse work place is more productive and has fewer HR problems. I mostly hear the "merit over gender" argument from folks that are in a profession that is already dominated by one gender.
Yes, I think that's the main purpose of diverse workplaces, to build tolerance with other people, and create coexistence... However affirmative action to these groups, or trying to meet quotas of certain groups just to look better in your paperwork, or have social responsibility is silly... And it's a reality we're living in.
Either way, I think that Trump on this issue specifically, is very similar to Democrats, closer than with Republicans, that's for sure. I do think that the current social far left is taking it too far, they are putting too many emotions into our society instead of growing a thicker skin, and I think Trump has a fair balance here... During the Bill Clinton era, I think the Democrats had their views on these things set straight, right now it's being silly.
On September 26 2016 03:11 RealityIsKing wrote: [quote]
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?
I don't exactly know what you want?
There are two candidates to endorse. Like someone mentioned previously, it's hella fucking stupid. You either say, we don't want this guy's endorsement, just as Trump did with David Duke, and be done with it. There's only two parties, what more can he do? There's bad apples, the insane SJW, Black Lives Matter, on the Hillary side, as well as on the Donald Trump side.
Are you putting an equal sign between white supremacists and BLM? + Show Spoiler +
Does BLM even endorse Clinton by the way?
Well initially Hillary was on the BLM side, but they've gone insane recently, so she's pushing herself away from it, and trying to appeal to Black voters in a different way.
Either way, I think your argument is abysmal. Just because someone bad supports someone, doesn't make that someone a bad person. I don't know the terminology for philosophical arguments or whatever that Barrin uses, but there is a clear logical gap with your argument.
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.
Don't believe what the media tell ya.
Actually go and watch the candidates' speeches.
What I mean by that is that a couple of months ago, the Left biased media smeared Trump by saying how Trump wants to get rid of ALL Mexican when he CLEARLY said that he wants to take the illegals out.
Not only that, he also said that he is willing to let in the useful immigrants in which would actually be beneficial to those illegal immigrants that aren't getting the proper pay and can't get social benefit due to their statuses.
That's the same thing with how the media use to make outrages (or still are) over "gender wage gap" or "campus rape stats" without looking at the big picture because of the SJW industry.
Then the media said that Trump is a racist for not letting in Muslim people in. Well religion isn't a race, there are plenty of non-Muslim Syrians.
I personally think that of course there is a possibility that Trump might screw up with foreign policies due to his temperament but Hillary is also a globalist that doesn't necessary look out for the American people.
On September 26 2016 07:40 Godwrath wrote: He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
Yeah, except there is solid data that a more diverse work place is more productive and has fewer HR problems. I mostly hear the "merit over gender" argument from folks that are in a profession that is already dominated by one gender.
Then show it to him, and by extension to the rest of us (even tho i already agree with you). This is a discussion thread, not a "be snarky as fuck" whenever you are presented with an opinion you disagree with.
There was this study that showed increased revenue for more diverse companies, though it should be noted that people were "less happy with the diverse work force". There are more out there, but I need to be at my PC to find them.
The main reason some posters have gotten way from posting studies is that they have been quickly "invalidated" by the people they are responding to and rarely lead to full discussion of the topic. Especially this election season.
On September 26 2016 03:55 FiWiFaKi wrote: [quote]
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?
I don't exactly know what you want?
There are two candidates to endorse. Like someone mentioned previously, it's hella fucking stupid. You either say, we don't want this guy's endorsement, just as Trump did with David Duke, and be done with it. There's only two parties, what more can he do? There's bad apples, the insane SJW, Black Lives Matter, on the Hillary side, as well as on the Donald Trump side.
Are you putting an equal sign between white supremacists and BLM? + Show Spoiler +
Does BLM even endorse Clinton by the way?
Well initially Hillary was on the BLM side, but they've gone insane recently, so she's pushing herself away from it, and trying to appeal to Black voters in a different way.
Either way, I think your argument is abysmal. Just because someone bad supports someone, doesn't make that someone a bad person. I don't know the terminology for philosophical arguments or whatever that Barrin uses, but there is a clear logical gap with your argument.
It's not mine, see with ChristianS (from memory). Can you please answer my question though? Do you consider BLM as bad as white supremacists?
On September 26 2016 07:40 Godwrath wrote: He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
Yeah, except there is solid data that a more diverse work place is more productive and has fewer HR problems. I mostly hear the "merit over gender" argument from folks that are in a profession that is already dominated by one gender.
The first study I found shows that this is at most partly true. news.mit.edu "Gender diversity in the workplace helps firms be more productive, according to a new study co-authored by an MIT researcher — but it may also reduce satisfaction among employees." "At the same time, individual employees may prefer less diverse settings. The study, analyzing a large white-collar U.S. firm, examined how much “social capital” offices build up in the form of things like cooperation, trust, and enjoyment of the workplace." This study was only looking at office work though. EDIT: you mentioned it in a post while I was typing this, so it's a bit moot now.
On September 26 2016 07:40 Godwrath wrote: He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
Yeah, except there is solid data that a more diverse work place is more productive and has fewer HR problems. I mostly hear the "merit over gender" argument from folks that are in a profession that is already dominated by one gender.
Then show it to him, and by extension to the rest of us (even tho i already agree with you). This is a discussion thread, not a "be snarky as fuck" whenever you are presented with an opinion you disagree with.
On September 26 2016 07:43 TheDwf wrote:
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.
There was this study that showed increased revenue for more diverse companies, though it should be noted that people were "less happy with the diverse work force". There are more out there, but I need to be at my PC to find them.
The main reason some posters have gotten way from posting studies is that they have been quickly "invalidated" by the people they are responding to and rarely lead to full discussion of the topic. Especially this election season.
I understand that sometimes it's hard to come by with that, but then there is people like me, who ussually do not contribute, and silently thanks people who posts those kind of studies and check them out. So thank you
On September 26 2016 07:40 Godwrath wrote: He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
Yeah, except there is solid data that a more diverse work place is more productive and has fewer HR problems. I mostly hear the "merit over gender" argument from folks that are in a profession that is already dominated by one gender.
Then show it to him, and by extension to the rest of us (even tho i already agree with you). This is a discussion thread, not a "be snarky as fuck" whenever you are presented with an opinion you disagree with.
On September 26 2016 07:43 TheDwf wrote:
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.
There was this study that showed increased revenue for more diverse companies, though it should be noted that people were "less happy with the diverse work force". There are more out there, but I need to be at my PC to find them.
The main reason some posters have gotten way from posting studies is that they have been quickly "invalidated" by the people they are responding to and rarely lead to full discussion of the topic. Especially this election season.
I agree, posting studies is not very effective in this thread, because you'll write a well-thought out post, and then someone will post "Trump has small hands" or something, and everything will start a conversation on that topic as it's much easier to discuss and requires left effort, and your work just gets buried in crap.
On September 26 2016 05:33 Danglars wrote: [quote] 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?
I don't exactly know what you want?
There are two candidates to endorse. Like someone mentioned previously, it's hella fucking stupid. You either say, we don't want this guy's endorsement, just as Trump did with David Duke, and be done with it. There's only two parties, what more can he do? There's bad apples, the insane SJW, Black Lives Matter, on the Hillary side, as well as on the Donald Trump side.
Are you putting an equal sign between white supremacists and BLM? + Show Spoiler +
Does BLM even endorse Clinton by the way?
Well initially Hillary was on the BLM side, but they've gone insane recently, so she's pushing herself away from it, and trying to appeal to Black voters in a different way.
Either way, I think your argument is abysmal. Just because someone bad supports someone, doesn't make that someone a bad person. I don't know the terminology for philosophical arguments or whatever that Barrin uses, but there is a clear logical gap with your argument.
It's not mine, see with ChristianS (from memory). Can you please answer my question though? Do you consider BLM as bad as white supremacists?
On a whole, of course white supremacists are worse, though there are plenty of BLM people that are worse than White Supremacists. I'm not far and away disconnected from reality.
So yes, there are awful people on both sides, I agree with you that more are on Trump's, but the reality is that these bad people make up say 0.1-5% (just throwing a guestimate out of my ass) of the entire support of either candidate... So it's unfair to judge all supporters of the candidate based on your criteria, I also have no idea where you're trying to go with your argument.
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.
Don't believe what the media tell ya.
Actually go and watch the candidates' speeches.
What I mean by that is that a couple of months ago, the Left biased media smeared Trump by saying how Trump wants to get rid of ALL Mexican when he CLEARLY said that he wants to take the illegals out.
Not only that, he also said that he is willing to let in the useful immigrants in which would actually be beneficial to those illegal immigrants that aren't getting the proper pay and can't get social benefit due to their statuses.
That's the same thing with how the media use to make outrages (or still are) over "gender wage gap" or "campus rape stats" without looking at the big picture because of the SJW industry.
Then the media said that Trump is a racist for not letting in Muslim people in. Well religion isn't a race, there are plenty of non-Muslim Syrians.
I personally think that of course there is a possibility that Trump might screw up with foreign policies due to his temperament but Hillary is also a globalist that doesn't necessary look out for the American people.
Yeah, but being Black isn't a race either if you go that route... One of the synonyms for islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism. And he wasn't talking about preventing Syrians from entering, he was talking about all foreign Muslims. Solely based on the fact that they are Muslims.
On September 26 2016 07:40 Godwrath wrote: He is talking about putting merits above gender parity and the like.
Yeah, except there is solid data that a more diverse work place is more productive and has fewer HR problems. I mostly hear the "merit over gender" argument from folks that are in a profession that is already dominated by one gender.
The first study I found shows that this is at most partly true. news.mit.edu "Gender diversity in the workplace helps firms be more productive, according to a new study co-authored by an MIT researcher — but it may also reduce satisfaction among employees." "At the same time, individual employees may prefer less diverse settings. The study, analyzing a large white-collar U.S. firm, examined how much “social capital” offices build up in the form of things like cooperation, trust, and enjoyment of the workplace." This study was only looking at office work though. EDIT: you mentioned it in a post while I was typing this, so it's a bit moot now.
I like to stick to work place studies, rather then branch out into the army. The army is famous for performing studies that show what they don't want to happen to be terrible and then it being fine once they are forced to do it. They produced a similar study when they were forced to desegregate.
Not that I don't agree, I just don't trust they to conduct an independent review of themselves.
EPT
