|
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. |
United States43219 Posts
On October 03 2016 07:56 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On October 03 2016 07:46 biology]major wrote:On October 03 2016 07:35 KwarK wrote:On October 03 2016 07:24 biology]major wrote:On October 03 2016 07:18 KwarK wrote:On October 03 2016 07:06 Toadesstern wrote:
guys... it's a joke. Kwark always does that to troll people he disagrees with for his own enjoyment I was 110% serious. The average Trump supporter has a very difficult relationship with reality and has to try very hard to maintain their belief in the Trump friendly version of reality against the evidence of their own eyes and ears. For example believing that Trump never supported the Iraq was when listening to Trump's voice explain that he supports the Iraq war or insisting that Ford is leaving America when Ford insists that their American manufacturing is growing. It's one of the reasons they have so much hatred for fact checkers and the media. Basically any institution which checks a claim against reality is going to come into their crosshairs as an enemy that must be disbelieved, dismissed and destroyed. This belief in their own alternate reality is much easier for them when they surround themselves with likeminded individuals and censor any opposing views. It's why they form insular communities built on censorship. The Trump supporters here on tl are unusual in that they seem to willingly expose themselves to another perspective, and they should be commended for that. But they're a minority, the reason Trump is so underrepresented here compared to nationally in the US is in part due to Trump supporters having zero desire to hear anything but Trump, and even then only if it's the latest Trump approved Trump and not the old Trump which must be updated by the Minitruth. This trait is particularly obvious by their poll manipulation across the internet which even stretched to tl polls. Anyone who actually watched the debate saw Trump implode. It's partly why there were immediate accusations of Hillary wearing a wire, moderator bias and microphone issues from Trump supporters. They knew damn well he lost and wanted to explain why it wasn't his fault. But they couldn't allow the polls to show Trump losing so they started spamming them in order to try and make reality more closely resemble the reality they wanted. They couldn't do anything about the debate performance, in which Trump had a meltdown, but they could pretend that didn't happen and that nobody saw it by rigging the polls so that it'd look more like he won to them, as long as they didn't actually look at any part of the debate. All you are describing is a bias in different perspectives, you aren't immune to it buddy I'm really not. I'll happily admit I have my own bias, assumptions and beliefs etc but if I am confronted with evidence to the contrary that I cannot explain I don't simply get angry at the evidence. If Hillary lost a debate I wouldn't be out there spamming polls so that I could check the polls, see that she didn't really lose and preserve my delusions because the polls said she won (after I rigged them). When Doodsmack posted that thing about Bill being a rapist I remarked that it seemed plausible etc. What Newt Gingrich etc do when they say it doesn't matter what the facts are, it only matters what people feel about what they believe the facts to be, or what Trump himself does when he gets into arguments against recordings of himself, is a completely different thing. To the average Trump supporter it's not about reason, it's about faith. The more extreme the leap of faith required, the better. To really support Trump you need to be able to watch Trump say 1+1=3 and swear blind that it's true, until he says that 1+1=4 at which point you deny that he ever said it was 3. It's actually rather Orwellian, they really do seem to believe it. Trust me I doubt the_donald which is probably as biased as you say but they are so fed up with status quo, so fed up with perceived corruption that they cannot accept a Clinton victory. They will cling to hope and contort everything to fit their narrative because they believe in trump and more importantly loathe Clinton and the status quo she represents. The same can be said of extreme Clinton supporters who see trump as a racist, and thus see all of his supporters as racist. My Facebook is commonly filled with "if you support trump, you are not only an idiot but a racist/sexist/xenophobic". Do you actually know if trump is a racist or are you contorting something to fit your narrative? So when you say that it's about faith to average trump supporter, I would just change that to the average voter in general. He instructed his employees to mark the rental applications of African Americans with a C for coloured so that they could be selectively denied. That's pretty racist. I don't know what your standard of proof is though so maybe for you that doesn't count. I didn't know that, link me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html?_r=0
Battling the Government
Donald Trump said he had first heard about the lawsuit, which was filed in the fall of 1973, on his car radio.
The government had charged him, his father and their company, Trump Management Inc., with violating the Fair Housing Act.
Another major New York developer, the LeFrak Organization, had been hit with a similar suit a few years earlier. Its founder, Samuel LeFrak, had appeared at a news conference alongside the United States attorney, trumpeting a consent agreement to prohibit discrimination in his buildings by saying it would “make open housing in our cities a reality.” The LeFrak company even offered the equivalent of one month’s rent to help 50 black families move into predominantly white buildings.
Donald Trump took a different approach. He retained Senator Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting counsel, Roy Cohn, to defend him. Mr. Trump soon called his own news conference — to announce his countersuit against the government.
The government’s lawyers took as their starting point the years of research conducted by civil rights groups at Trump properties.“We did our own investigation and enlarged the case,” said Elyse Goldweber, who as a young assistant United States attorney worked on the lawsuit, U.S.A. v. Trump.
A former Trump superintendent named Thomas Miranda testified that multiple Trump Management employees had instructed him to attach a separate piece of paper with a big letter “C” on it — for “colored” — to any application filed by a black apartment-seeker.
The Trumps went on the offensive, filing a contempt-of-court charge against one of the prosecutors, accusing her of turning the investigation into a “Gestapo-like interrogation.” The Trumps derided the lawsuit as a pressure tactic to get them to sign a consent decree like the one agreed to by Mr. LeFrak.
The judge dismissed both the countersuit and the contempt-of-court charge. After nearly two years of legal wrangling, the Trumps gave up and signed a consent decree.
As is customary, it did not include an admission of guilt. But it did include pages of stipulations intended to ensure the desegregation of Trump properties.
This is the incident Clinton referenced in the debate. Trump explained himself by saying it was the 80s and he wasn't the only one charged with discrimination in the 80s and anyway he didn't even have to admit wrongdoing.
|
On October 03 2016 08:02 TheYango wrote:
The strange consequence of Trump supporters essentially picking and choosing what they want from him is that you have people that actually hold irreconcilable contradictory positions somehow supporting the same candidate.
The wall is a good example of this. We've had different Trump supporters in this thread separately argue that:
1) The wall is a stupid idea that he's obviously not going to follow through on, he's just saying it to appeal to a certain part of his base,
and
2) I think the wall is a good idea and no one else in politics would have the balls to suggest an idea like that
It's literally not possible for Trump to do something that actually ends up satisfying both of these groups but somehow they both support him anyway.
The beauty of it is both those groups hate Clinton equally.
Saddened to read that kwark, hope he changed his views since then.
|
On October 03 2016 08:02 KwarK wrote:
This is the incident Clinton referenced in the debate. Trump explained himself by saying it was the 80s and he wasn't the only one charged with discrimination in the 80s and anyway he didn't even have to admit wrongdoing.
TBH that was just about the shittiest way for Trump to actually try and defend that. A better line would have been "if me being discriminatory in the past makes me racist, then you being against same-sex marriage in the past makes you a homophobe".
Both candidates have flip-flopped enough that either of them taking that line could easily be spun by the other into the pot calling the kettle black.
|
On October 03 2016 07:44 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 07:34 zeo wrote:On October 03 2016 07:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 03 2016 06:23 zeo wrote:On October 03 2016 06:20 KwarK wrote:On October 03 2016 05:59 Titan107 wrote:
This thread seems to be a Hillary circle-jerk. Trump supporters typically don't get online so much and when they do they very rarely leave their safe spaces like /r/The_Donald which ban anyone questioning whatever Trump said most recently (even if that person is quoting Trump from before). They're not too keen on the internet, too many facts floating around which get in the way of how they feel. Psychological projectionPsychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
According to some research, the projection of one's unconscious qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.[2] 67 days since Trump's last press conference. Just thought I'd let you know. 302 days have passed since Clintons last one, thank you for reminding me to look it up again. She will probably hold one right after the election so the magical 365 day mark is unattainable. Shame really  ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HlRW2Fd.png) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/19/after-dogging-hillary-clinton-journalists-now-track-donald-trumps-news-conference-drought/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/08/hillary-clintons-finally-gave-a-press-conference-what-took-so-long/
15min for 5 questions from pet reporters is a press conference now. What a time to be alive.
|
United States43219 Posts
On October 03 2016 08:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 08:02 TheYango wrote:
The strange consequence of Trump supporters essentially picking and choosing what they want from him is that you have people that actually hold irreconcilable contradictory positions somehow supporting the same candidate.
The wall is a good example of this. We've had different Trump supporters in this thread separately argue that:
1) The wall is a stupid idea that he's obviously not going to follow through on, he's just saying it to appeal to a certain part of his base,
and
2) I think the wall is a good idea and no one else in politics would have the balls to suggest an idea like that
It's literally not possible for Trump to do something that actually ends up satisfying both of these groups but somehow they both support him anyway. The beauty of it is both those groups hate Clinton equally. Saddened to read that kwark, hope he changed his views since then.
Did you not watch the debate? Like I said, Clinton referenced it then.
|
On October 03 2016 08:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 08:03 biology]major wrote:On October 03 2016 08:02 TheYango wrote:
The strange consequence of Trump supporters essentially picking and choosing what they want from him is that you have people that actually hold irreconcilable contradictory positions somehow supporting the same candidate.
The wall is a good example of this. We've had different Trump supporters in this thread separately argue that:
1) The wall is a stupid idea that he's obviously not going to follow through on, he's just saying it to appeal to a certain part of his base,
and
2) I think the wall is a good idea and no one else in politics would have the balls to suggest an idea like that
It's literally not possible for Trump to do something that actually ends up satisfying both of these groups but somehow they both support him anyway. The beauty of it is both those groups hate Clinton equally. Saddened to read that kwark, hope he changed his views since then. Did you not watch the debate? Like I said, Clinton referenced it then.
He even misrepresented that a lot of other landlords were part of the lawsuit. Most were not, but changed their practice after the justice department told them it was illegal. Trump was one of three landlords that fought against it and lost.
|
The Republican Party itself is a pretty significant contradiction in that the modern party goals require a lot of lying to appeal to its voters. It is not lost on me that while I agree with a lot of their principles and policy suggestions, the party lies too much and is a con job. I'm interested in hearing xDaunt's view on the matter when he finally has the time to make the post I asked for.
|
United States43219 Posts
Out of curiousity bio, now you've heard about the incident in question, does that make you think he may be racist?
|
On October 03 2016 08:23 KwarK wrote:
Out of curiousity bio, now you've heard about the incident in question, does that make you think he may be racist?
If “illegal Mexican migrants are rapist” and “ban any Muslim immigration” were not enough, I doubt it will.
Oh, and I forgot Obama's citizenship stuff...
|
On October 03 2016 08:07 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 08:02 KwarK wrote:
This is the incident Clinton referenced in the debate. Trump explained himself by saying it was the 80s and he wasn't the only one charged with discrimination in the 80s and anyway he didn't even have to admit wrongdoing. TBH that was just about the shittiest way for Trump to actually try and defend that. A better line would have been "if me being discriminatory in the past makes me racist, then you being against same-sex marriage in the past makes you a homophobe". Both candidates have flip-flopped enough that either of them taking that line could easily be spun by the other into the pot calling the kettle black.
Her stance on LGBT rights and his history of racism isn't even remotely comparable, and I disagree. For people who aren't going to look up info about it, "no admission of guilt" makes it seem a non-issue, while obvious deflection draws suspicion.
Anyways, back from canvassing so now I canrespond to a several posts I've been meaning to.
|
On October 03 2016 08:18 LegalLord wrote:
The Republican Party itself is a pretty significant contradiction in that the modern party goals require a lot of lying to appeal to its voters. It is not lost on me that while I agree with a lot of their principles and policy suggestions, the party lies too much and is a con job. I'm interested in hearing xDaunt's view on the matter when he finally has the time to make the post I asked for.
With the left on top there's very few marginal changes the Republican party can make to redefine itself without taking a short term loss. So there's no incentive to do anything but start over, which is Trump.
|
On October 03 2016 08:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 08:18 LegalLord wrote:
The Republican Party itself is a pretty significant contradiction in that the modern party goals require a lot of lying to appeal to its voters. It is not lost on me that while I agree with a lot of their principles and policy suggestions, the party lies too much and is a con job. I'm interested in hearing xDaunt's view on the matter when he finally has the time to make the post I asked for. With the left on top there's very few marginal changes the Republican party can make to redefine itself without taking a short term loss. So there's no incentive to do anything but start over, which is Trump.
Trump is not restarting, it is the final form of the southern strategy they adopted decades ago. Gone are the pretenses of attempting to attract minority voters and it just about appealing to that base they cultivated since Nixon.
|
I'm pretty convinced that a large reason of the opposition to Hillary Clinton is rooted in insecure sexism. There's really no other way to explain people claiming low testosterone levels are the only reason for male Clinton supporters. The implicit idea pretty clearly is that someone has to be "not male" in some way to support a Clinton presidency.
|
On October 03 2016 08:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 08:30 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2016 08:18 LegalLord wrote:
The Republican Party itself is a pretty significant contradiction in that the modern party goals require a lot of lying to appeal to its voters. It is not lost on me that while I agree with a lot of their principles and policy suggestions, the party lies too much and is a con job. I'm interested in hearing xDaunt's view on the matter when he finally has the time to make the post I asked for. With the left on top there's very few marginal changes the Republican party can make to redefine itself without taking a short term loss. So there's no incentive to do anything but start over, which is Trump. Trump is not restarting, it is the final form of the southern strategy they adopted decades ago. Gone are the pretenses of attempting to attract minority voters and it just about appealing to that base they cultivated since Nixon.
Of course they want minority voters, they want all voters. Rubio or Cruz or Carson would not be polling at 70% either. But on your planet if the final form doesn't win you'll get to see a whole new party next cycle anyway.
|
On October 03 2016 08:46 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 08:33 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2016 08:30 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2016 08:18 LegalLord wrote:
The Republican Party itself is a pretty significant contradiction in that the modern party goals require a lot of lying to appeal to its voters. It is not lost on me that while I agree with a lot of their principles and policy suggestions, the party lies too much and is a con job. I'm interested in hearing xDaunt's view on the matter when he finally has the time to make the post I asked for. With the left on top there's very few marginal changes the Republican party can make to redefine itself without taking a short term loss. So there's no incentive to do anything but start over, which is Trump. Trump is not restarting, it is the final form of the southern strategy they adopted decades ago. Gone are the pretenses of attempting to attract minority voters and it just about appealing to that base they cultivated since Nixon. Of course they want minority voters, they want all voters. Rubio or Cruz or Carson would not be polling at 70% either. But on your planet if the final form doesn't win you'll get to see a whole new party next cycle anyway.
Here's to hoping for a brand new party then.
|
On October 03 2016 08:23 KwarK wrote:
Out of curiousity bio, now you've heard about the incident in question, does that make you think he may be racist?
there is a chance he may be racist. I hope since it was so long ago that he isn't now outside of the "implicit bias" that everyone already has.
|
It's too bad they can't run some sort of "reasonable conservatism" and get enough votes from that.
|
On October 03 2016 08:52 zlefin wrote:
It's too bad they can't run some sort of "reasonable conservatism" and get enough votes from that.
The problem is a classic "dedicated radicals, wishy washy centrists" constraint that pushes the party into a stupid spot. Also shilling for the donors.
|
On October 03 2016 08:10 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 07:44 Toadesstern wrote:On October 03 2016 07:34 zeo wrote:On October 03 2016 07:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 03 2016 06:23 zeo wrote:On October 03 2016 06:20 KwarK wrote:On October 03 2016 05:59 Titan107 wrote:
This thread seems to be a Hillary circle-jerk. Trump supporters typically don't get online so much and when they do they very rarely leave their safe spaces like /r/The_Donald which ban anyone questioning whatever Trump said most recently (even if that person is quoting Trump from before). They're not too keen on the internet, too many facts floating around which get in the way of how they feel. Psychological projectionPsychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
According to some research, the projection of one's unconscious qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.[2] 67 days since Trump's last press conference. Just thought I'd let you know. 302 days have passed since Clintons last one, thank you for reminding me to look it up again. She will probably hold one right after the election so the magical 365 day mark is unattainable. Shame really https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/19/after-dogging-hillary-clinton-journalists-now-track-donald-trumps-news-conference-drought/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/08/hillary-clintons-finally-gave-a-press-conference-what-took-so-long/ 15min for 5 questions from pet reporters is a press conference now. What a time to be alive.
Are you just upset Trump hasn't had a press conference for two months now?
|
On October 03 2016 08:27 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 08:23 KwarK wrote:
Out of curiousity bio, now you've heard about the incident in question, does that make you think he may be racist? If “illegal Mexican migrants are rapist” and “ban any Muslim immigration” were not enough, I doubt it will. Oh, and I forgot Obama's citizenship stuff...
"illegal mexican migrants are rapist" --> they commit crime at a much higher rate than everyone else, they aren't mexicos best. Hes right about that, as usual says it in his over the top brash language. Banning Muslim immigration is extreme but he changed it to based on countries with predominantly backward ideas and high rates of terrorism, completely justified and within the power of a president. Obama's citizenship was in question by not only trump, he championed the shit out of it though. He also did something similar with Cruz, so I'm not sure if it was because Obama is black that it was done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
