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 November 10 2016 12:02 biology]major wrote: Damn, I have never seen so much hate and vitriol on my social media. So many labels, and alerts of panic attacks, while completely glossing over the failure that is Hillary Clinton. When will these liberals realize that there is more to a person's choice of president than just social issues? This insane obsession with bigotry and missing the bigger picture of things like national security, economy, trade is mind boggling.
Again, you're being as condescending towards their lives as they have to the ruralites.
In case you were being serious, the difference is that the "liberals" who are obsessed with social justice believed in the security of the country during Obama and thus Hillary, and worked in places where the economy was growing, and the trade was expanding. On the other hand, they experienced social injustices such as unwanted sexual attention and unjust treatment of minorities. So those are the problems relevant to them. In my liberal bubble, people were tired of Hillary but no one hated her or her stances on things, but people really hated Trump.
If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
What anti-liberal rhetoric are you complaining about specifically?
On November 10 2016 11:34 Introvert wrote: There is a belief out there that protests like these help Trump's turnout or his message. I'm not convinced I agree, but it must be noted that it doesn't appear to help Democrat turnout in any way.
People thought there might be violence if Trump won. Again, I'd say recent history leads one to conclude that Trump's victory is more likely to cause riots and the like. It's the left that does this.
But I wish I knew the effect is has.
I guarantee that the lawlessness of crap like BLM made a difference.
And yes, for all the incessant hand-wringing that I hear from the left regarding how violent and dangerous Trump supporters are, I've never seen anything to substantiate it. In contrast, many of these same people on the left often give passes to BLM or any of the other leftist outbursts that we've seen over the years.
Jesus Christ man how much of a blind eye can you possibly turn to justify your own reality? That's an insane position to take. I just Googled and took the first 3 results.
There is violence on both sides, anti-Trump and pro-Trump. How can you even deny this? How do you advocate for the left to stop hand waving away the concerns of the right when you yourself continue to hand wave away issues like BLM? There are legitimate issues raised on both tables of the assault, with different motives behind each one. You belittle their motives in exactly the same way you get annoyed from people doing to yours.
The reason shit happened at the Trump rallies is because Hillary sent paid agitators (in addition to other agitators going there on their own accord for one or another) there to cause trouble (thanks, Wikileaks). I watched multiple Trump rallies. His people were always cool when left alone.
The only evidence of that is the disgraced O'keefe non-journalist's videos. There's a reason he's disgraced. His videos are fabrications to present a point using material taken out of context. He won't provide the source video.
On November 10 2016 11:34 Introvert wrote: There is a belief out there that protests like these help Trump's turnout or his message. I'm not convinced I agree, but it must be noted that it doesn't appear to help Democrat turnout in any way.
People thought there might be violence if Trump won. Again, I'd say recent history leads one to conclude that Trump's victory is more likely to cause riots and the like. It's the left that does this.
But I wish I knew the effect is has.
I guarantee that the lawlessness of crap like BLM made a difference.
And yes, for all the incessant hand-wringing that I hear from the left regarding how violent and dangerous Trump supporters are, I've never seen anything to substantiate it. In contrast, many of these same people on the left often give passes to BLM or any of the other leftist outbursts that we've seen over the years.
Jesus Christ man how much of a blind eye can you possibly turn to justify your own reality? That's an insane position to take. I just Googled and took the first 3 results.
There is violence on both sides, anti-Trump and pro-Trump. How can you even deny this? How do you advocate for the left to stop hand waving away the concerns of the right when you yourself continue to hand wave away issues like BLM? There are legitimate issues raised on both tables of the assault, with different motives behind each one. You belittle their motives in exactly the same way you get annoyed from people doing to yours.
The reason shit happened at the Trump rallies is because Hillary sent paid agitators (in addition to other agitators going there on their own accord for one or another) there to cause trouble (thanks, Wikileaks). I watched multiple Trump rallies. His people were always cool when left alone.
The only evidence of that is the disgraced O'keefe non-journalist's videos. There's a reason he's disgraced. His videos are fabrications to present a point using material taken out of context.
Oh, was it O'Keefe? Frankly, it doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that Trump rallies were always peaceful until the liberal agitators showed up. And even then, the Trump supporters generally handled themselves quite well.
On November 10 2016 12:18 LegalLord wrote: I'm really hoping that next election, we move away from this identity politics game. One may wonder whether or not the Democrats play a big role in exacerbating race issues by playing it for political gain.
Obama and Bernie didn't do it nearly as much as Hillary did; they had more of a vision for how things could improve than for how you could call your opponent all manners of evil things. I hope future candidates don't poison the well of goodwill by continuing this stupid game. People like me, who should be easily on the side of the Democrats, are really, really turned off by that ridiculous approach to campaigning.
The thing that really irked me is when any democratic person would say, we're doing well with the college educated, with the white women... I guess that's kind of what you mean by identity politics.
It's just so annoying, the Democrats to me, really felt like they just threw voters in buckets based on their race/religion/sex/education when talking about them, and it pissed me off so much. Just treating people like numbers, idk. From what I've seen, Trump did way less of that, and at least in how he referred to groups of people, he seemed WAY more unifying.
On November 10 2016 12:02 biology]major wrote: Damn, I have never seen so much hate and vitriol on my social media. So many labels, and alerts of panic attacks, while completely glossing over the failure that is Hillary Clinton. When will these liberals realize that there is more to a person's choice of president than just social issues? This insane obsession with bigotry and missing the bigger picture of things like national security, economy, trade is mind boggling.
Again, you're being as condescending towards their lives as they have to the ruralites.
In case you were being serious, the difference is that the "liberals" who are obsessed with social justice believed in the security of the country during Obama and thus Hillary, and worked in places where the economy was growing, and the trade was expanding. On the other hand, they experienced social injustices such as unwanted sexual attention and unjust treatment of minorities. So those are the problems relevant to them. In my liberal bubble, people were tired of Hillary but no one hated her or her stances on things, but people really hated Trump.
If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
What anti-liberal rhetoric are you complaining about specifically?
Honestly, specifically that all liberals are these panicking social justice warriors who always miss the picture about "national security, economy, trade" in favour of "social issues". Two people can view the same person and come to completely different conclusions about their abilities because they've had vastly different life experiences. bio even mentions the labelling they're doing on twitter without realizing that he's doing it him/herself.
On November 10 2016 12:18 LegalLord wrote: I'm really hoping that next election, we move away from this identity politics game. One may wonder whether or not the Democrats play a big role in exacerbating race issues by playing it for political gain.
Obama and Bernie didn't do it nearly as much as Hillary did; they had more of a vision for how things could improve than for how you could call your opponent all manners of evil things. I hope future candidates don't poison the well of goodwill by continuing this stupid game. People like me, who should be easily on the side of the Democrats, are really, really turned off by that ridiculous approach to campaigning.
The thing that really irked me is when any democratic person would say, we're doing well with the college educated, with the white women... I guess that's kind of what you mean by identity politics.
It's just so annoying, the Democrats to me, really felt like they just threw voters in buckets based on their race/religion/sex/education when talking about them, and it pissed me off so much. Just treating people like numbers, idk. From what I've seen, Trump did way less of that, and at least in how he referred to groups of people, he seemed WAY more unifying.
I was really disgusted by Madeleine Albright playing the "women who don't vote for Clinton go to hell" card and by Hillary Clinton's "how can a woman be an establishment candidate" stupidity during the primaries. I really don't know if they realize just how viscerally disgusting that kind of appeal is to people outside of the demographic that is ready to soak up that kind of rhetoric and spread it. It doesn't solve anything, it just pits people against each other over labels that are politically poor descriptors of how people differ between one another.
On November 10 2016 11:34 Introvert wrote: There is a belief out there that protests like these help Trump's turnout or his message. I'm not convinced I agree, but it must be noted that it doesn't appear to help Democrat turnout in any way.
People thought there might be violence if Trump won. Again, I'd say recent history leads one to conclude that Trump's victory is more likely to cause riots and the like. It's the left that does this.
But I wish I knew the effect is has.
I guarantee that the lawlessness of crap like BLM made a difference.
And yes, for all the incessant hand-wringing that I hear from the left regarding how violent and dangerous Trump supporters are, I've never seen anything to substantiate it. In contrast, many of these same people on the left often give passes to BLM or any of the other leftist outbursts that we've seen over the years.
Jesus Christ man how much of a blind eye can you possibly turn to justify your own reality? That's an insane position to take. I just Googled and took the first 3 results.
There is violence on both sides, anti-Trump and pro-Trump. How can you even deny this? How do you advocate for the left to stop hand waving away the concerns of the right when you yourself continue to hand wave away issues like BLM? There are legitimate issues raised on both tables of the assault, with different motives behind each one. You belittle their motives in exactly the same way you get annoyed from people doing to yours.
The reason shit happened at the Trump rallies is because Hillary sent paid agitators (in addition to other agitators going there on their own accord for one or another) there to cause trouble (thanks, Wikileaks). I watched multiple Trump rallies. His people were always cool when left alone.
The only evidence of that is the disgraced O'keefe non-journalist's videos. There's a reason he's disgraced. His videos are fabrications to present a point using material taken out of context.
Oh, was it O'Keefe? Frankly, it doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that Trump rallies were always peaceful until the liberal agitators showed up. And even then, the Trump supporters generally handled themselves quite well.
I don't believe you can say that confidently when Trump literally encouraged violence at his rallies.
“There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience,” Trump warned people at a rally in Iowa last month. “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”
Trump has even threatened to personally get in on the action. “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya,” he said of a protester on Feb. 22.
Yeah, violence only happens when there's protestors. But that's because what's the point of violence against people you agree with?
On November 10 2016 12:02 biology]major wrote: Damn, I have never seen so much hate and vitriol on my social media. So many labels, and alerts of panic attacks, while completely glossing over the failure that is Hillary Clinton. When will these liberals realize that there is more to a person's choice of president than just social issues? This insane obsession with bigotry and missing the bigger picture of things like national security, economy, trade is mind boggling.
Again, you're being as condescending towards their lives as they have to the ruralites.
In case you were being serious, the difference is that the "liberals" who are obsessed with social justice believed in the security of the country during Obama and thus Hillary, and worked in places where the economy was growing, and the trade was expanding. On the other hand, they experienced social injustices such as unwanted sexual attention and unjust treatment of minorities. So those are the problems relevant to them. In my liberal bubble, people were tired of Hillary but no one hated her or her stances on things, but people really hated Trump.
If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
What anti-liberal rhetoric are you complaining about specifically?
Honestly, specifically that all liberals are these panicking social justice warriors who always miss the picture about "national security, economy, trade" in favour of "social issues". Two people can view the same person and come to completely different conclusions about their abilities because they've had vastly different life experiences. bio even mentions the labelling they're doing on twitter without realizing that he's doing it him/herself.
Yes, I agree that painting all liberals as SJWs is unfair, and I certainly don't always properly distinguish between the two groups. That said, I'm pretty sure that a preponderance of liberals do fit within that SJW mold to one degree or another.
Let me ask some of you who oppose Donald Trump due to his in your face approach. do u guys really think he is going to launch random nukes at any country without thinking. his policies might be strict, but i am pretty sure, the thing some people crying on twitter and facebook about him launching nukes on muslim countries is pretty much a hoax.
On November 10 2016 12:02 biology]major wrote: Damn, I have never seen so much hate and vitriol on my social media. So many labels, and alerts of panic attacks, while completely glossing over the failure that is Hillary Clinton. When will these liberals realize that there is more to a person's choice of president than just social issues? This insane obsession with bigotry and missing the bigger picture of things like national security, economy, trade is mind boggling.
Again, you're being as condescending towards their lives as they have to the ruralites.
In case you were being serious, the difference is that the "liberals" who are obsessed with social justice believed in the security of the country during Obama and thus Hillary, and worked in places where the economy was growing, and the trade was expanding. On the other hand, they experienced social injustices such as unwanted sexual attention and unjust treatment of minorities. So those are the problems relevant to them. In my liberal bubble, people were tired of Hillary but no one hated her or her stances on things, but people really hated Trump.
If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
What anti-liberal rhetoric are you complaining about specifically?
Honestly, specifically that all liberals are these panicking social justice warriors who always miss the picture about "national security, economy, trade" in favour of "social issues". Two people can view the same person and come to completely different conclusions about their abilities because they've had vastly different life experiences. bio even mentions the labelling they're doing on twitter without realizing that he's doing it him/herself.
The socially charged rhetorical argument against Trump is "Trump is a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic pig who will ruin the livelihoods of all minorities." The economic/security argument would be "Trump is a policy lightweight who has proven that he does not have the judgment or experience to make good policy decisions for the benefit of our nation."
Now tell me, which narrative was pushed harder by the Democratic campaign? Then tell me that this issue isn't legitimate.
On November 10 2016 11:34 Introvert wrote: There is a belief out there that protests like these help Trump's turnout or his message. I'm not convinced I agree, but it must be noted that it doesn't appear to help Democrat turnout in any way.
People thought there might be violence if Trump won. Again, I'd say recent history leads one to conclude that Trump's victory is more likely to cause riots and the like. It's the left that does this.
But I wish I knew the effect is has.
I guarantee that the lawlessness of crap like BLM made a difference.
And yes, for all the incessant hand-wringing that I hear from the left regarding how violent and dangerous Trump supporters are, I've never seen anything to substantiate it. In contrast, many of these same people on the left often give passes to BLM or any of the other leftist outbursts that we've seen over the years.
Jesus Christ man how much of a blind eye can you possibly turn to justify your own reality? That's an insane position to take. I just Googled and took the first 3 results.
There is violence on both sides, anti-Trump and pro-Trump. How can you even deny this? How do you advocate for the left to stop hand waving away the concerns of the right when you yourself continue to hand wave away issues like BLM? There are legitimate issues raised on both tables of the assault, with different motives behind each one. You belittle their motives in exactly the same way you get annoyed from people doing to yours.
The reason shit happened at the Trump rallies is because Hillary sent paid agitators (in addition to other agitators going there on their own accord for one or another) there to cause trouble (thanks, Wikileaks). I watched multiple Trump rallies. His people were always cool when left alone.
The only evidence of that is the disgraced O'keefe non-journalist's videos. There's a reason he's disgraced. His videos are fabrications to present a point using material taken out of context.
Oh, was it O'Keefe? Frankly, it doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that Trump rallies were always peaceful until the liberal agitators showed up. And even then, the Trump supporters generally handled themselves quite well.
I believe you can say that confidently when Trump literally encouraged violence at his rallies.
“There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience,” Trump warned people at a rally in Iowa last month. “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”
Trump has even threatened to personally get in on the action. “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya,” he said of a protester on Feb. 22.
Yeah, violence only happens when there's protestors. But that's because what's the point of violence against people you agree with?
I'm reminded of the article that I cited from The Atlantic a month or two ago, where the author said something to the effect of "Trump's opponents take Trump literally, but not seriously, whereas Trump's supporter's take Trump seriously, but not literally."
On November 10 2016 12:18 LegalLord wrote: I'm really hoping that next election, we move away from this identity politics game. One may wonder whether or not the Democrats play a big role in exacerbating race issues by playing it for political gain.
Obama and Bernie didn't do it nearly as much as Hillary did; they had more of a vision for how things could improve than for how you could call your opponent all manners of evil things. I hope future candidates don't poison the well of goodwill by continuing this stupid game. People like me, who should be easily on the side of the Democrats, are really, really turned off by that ridiculous approach to campaigning.
The thing that really irked me is when any democratic person would say, we're doing well with the college educated, with the white women... I guess that's kind of what you mean by identity politics.
It's just so annoying, the Democrats to me, really felt like they just threw voters in buckets based on their race/religion/sex/education when talking about them, and it pissed me off so much. Just treating people like numbers, idk. From what I've seen, Trump did way less of that, and at least in how he referred to groups of people, he seemed WAY more unifying.
I was really disgusted by Madeleine Albright playing the "women who don't vote for Clinton go to hell" card and by Hillary Clinton's "how can a woman be an establishment candidate" stupidity during the primaries. I really don't know if they realize just how viscerally disgusting that kind of appeal is to people outside of the demographic that is ready to soak up that kind of rhetoric and spread it. It doesn't solve anything, it just pits people against each other over labels that are politically poor descriptors of how people differ between one another.
Yes, this was fucking disgusting. The best thing to come out of this for me is that most of Hillary's surrogates aren't going to be heard from for a long, long time.
On a different note : Trump still has his University racketeering trial on the 28th. The timing of all of that is pretty bizarre : are presidents able to be found liable for civil suits regardless? (I know he's only the president-elect at this point).
On November 10 2016 11:34 Introvert wrote: There is a belief out there that protests like these help Trump's turnout or his message. I'm not convinced I agree, but it must be noted that it doesn't appear to help Democrat turnout in any way.
People thought there might be violence if Trump won. Again, I'd say recent history leads one to conclude that Trump's victory is more likely to cause riots and the like. It's the left that does this.
But I wish I knew the effect is has.
I guarantee that the lawlessness of crap like BLM made a difference.
And yes, for all the incessant hand-wringing that I hear from the left regarding how violent and dangerous Trump supporters are, I've never seen anything to substantiate it. In contrast, many of these same people on the left often give passes to BLM or any of the other leftist outbursts that we've seen over the years.
Jesus Christ man how much of a blind eye can you possibly turn to justify your own reality? That's an insane position to take. I just Googled and took the first 3 results.
There is violence on both sides, anti-Trump and pro-Trump. How can you even deny this? How do you advocate for the left to stop hand waving away the concerns of the right when you yourself continue to hand wave away issues like BLM? There are legitimate issues raised on both tables of the assault, with different motives behind each one. You belittle their motives in exactly the same way you get annoyed from people doing to yours.
The reason shit happened at the Trump rallies is because Hillary sent paid agitators (in addition to other agitators going there on their own accord for one or another) there to cause trouble (thanks, Wikileaks). I watched multiple Trump rallies. His people were always cool when left alone.
The only evidence of that is the disgraced O'keefe non-journalist's videos. There's a reason he's disgraced. His videos are fabrications to present a point using material taken out of context.
Oh, was it O'Keefe? Frankly, it doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that Trump rallies were always peaceful until the liberal agitators showed up. And even then, the Trump supporters generally handled themselves quite well.
I believe you can say that confidently when Trump literally encouraged violence at his rallies.
“There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience,” Trump warned people at a rally in Iowa last month. “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”
Trump has even threatened to personally get in on the action. “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya,” he said of a protester on Feb. 22.
Yeah, violence only happens when there's protestors. But that's because what's the point of violence against people you agree with?
I'm reminded of the article that I cited from The Atlantic a month or two ago, where the author said something to the effect of "Trump's opponents take Trump literally, but not seriously, whereas Trump's supporter's take Trump seriously, but not literally."
On November 10 2016 12:32 Kamisamanachi wrote: Let me ask some of you who oppose Donald Trump due to his in your face approach. do u guys really think he is going to launch random nukes at any country without thinking. his policies might be strict, but i am pretty sure, the thing some people crying on twitter and facebook about him launching nukes on muslim countries is pretty much a hoax.
His security staff would smack him really, really hard if he ever thought about trying that. Even the most aggressive warhawks on his cabinet.
On November 10 2016 12:18 LegalLord wrote: I'm really hoping that next election, we move away from this identity politics game. One may wonder whether or not the Democrats play a big role in exacerbating race issues by playing it for political gain.
Obama and Bernie didn't do it nearly as much as Hillary did; they had more of a vision for how things could improve than for how you could call your opponent all manners of evil things. I hope future candidates don't poison the well of goodwill by continuing this stupid game. People like me, who should be easily on the side of the Democrats, are really, really turned off by that ridiculous approach to campaigning.
The thing that really irked me is when any democratic person would say, we're doing well with the college educated, with the white women... I guess that's kind of what you mean by identity politics.
It's just so annoying, the Democrats to me, really felt like they just threw voters in buckets based on their race/religion/sex/education when talking about them, and it pissed me off so much. Just treating people like numbers, idk. From what I've seen, Trump did way less of that, and at least in how he referred to groups of people, he seemed WAY more unifying.
I was really disgusted by Madeleine Albright playing the "women who don't vote for Clinton go to hell" card and by Hillary Clinton's "how can a woman be an establishment candidate" stupidity during the primaries. I really don't know if they realize just how viscerally disgusting that kind of appeal is to people outside of the demographic that is ready to soak up that kind of rhetoric and spread it. It doesn't solve anything, it just pits people against each other over labels that are politically poor descriptors of how people differ between one another.
Indeed, even in Hillary's concession speech, while starting fairly good, she started again. And to all the women out there, especially the younger ones... And then to all the girls out there, like please. I dunno, but from where I'm standing, as a white male who does the standard stuff, school -> work -> family, nothing too unique about me, nothing about her campaign felt aimed at me. I am not surprised to see such a massive male-female gap, because she completely neglected the male voter.
People might have assumed some undertone like when he says people, he means only white people or something, but he was inclusive in his language all of the election, barring the occasional slip-up, where he'd alienate a lot of people.
On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
I won't name names, but there are clearly Trump supporters who have been more and less graceful in victory.
On November 10 2016 12:02 biology]major wrote: Damn, I have never seen so much hate and vitriol on my social media. So many labels, and alerts of panic attacks, while completely glossing over the failure that is Hillary Clinton. When will these liberals realize that there is more to a person's choice of president than just social issues? This insane obsession with bigotry and missing the bigger picture of things like national security, economy, trade is mind boggling.
Again, you're being as condescending towards their lives as they have to the ruralites.
In case you were being serious, the difference is that the "liberals" who are obsessed with social justice believed in the security of the country during Obama and thus Hillary, and worked in places where the economy was growing, and the trade was expanding. On the other hand, they experienced social injustices such as unwanted sexual attention and unjust treatment of minorities. So those are the problems relevant to them. In my liberal bubble, people were tired of Hillary but no one hated her or her stances on things, but people really hated Trump.
If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
What anti-liberal rhetoric are you complaining about specifically?
Honestly, specifically that all liberals are these panicking social justice warriors who always miss the picture about "national security, economy, trade" in favour of "social issues". Two people can view the same person and come to completely different conclusions about their abilities because they've had vastly different life experiences. bio even mentions the labelling they're doing on twitter without realizing that he's doing it him/herself.
The socially charged rhetorical argument against Trump is "Trump is a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic pig who will ruin the livelihoods of all minorities." The economic/security argument would be "Trump is a policy lightweight who has proven that he does not have the judgment or experience to make good policy decisions for the benefit of our nation."
Now tell me, which narrative was pushed harder by the Democratic campaign? Then tell me that this issue isn't legitimate.
Honestly I can't take accountability for what avenues of attack the campaign and other people run, just what I can do in my sphere of influence and influencers. I try my best to do what I think is right, but it's not like this election hasn't been a complete blindside for a lot of liberal urbanites either. There are democrats who have run those kinds of unapologetic attacks that fit the stereotypical SJW narrative. But there have also been republicans who did the "a woman can't be fit for presidency" lines. The bottom line is that constantly drawing these divisive lines and shaming left-SJWs for shaming me gets nowhere, and just riles up the left even more (and vice-versa), in which case we're unable to have positive discussion and we recycle these problems.
On November 10 2016 12:02 biology]major wrote: Damn, I have never seen so much hate and vitriol on my social media. So many labels, and alerts of panic attacks, while completely glossing over the failure that is Hillary Clinton. When will these liberals realize that there is more to a person's choice of president than just social issues? This insane obsession with bigotry and missing the bigger picture of things like national security, economy, trade is mind boggling.
Again, you're being as condescending towards their lives as they have to the ruralites.
In case you were being serious, the difference is that the "liberals" who are obsessed with social justice believed in the security of the country during Obama and thus Hillary, and worked in places where the economy was growing, and the trade was expanding. On the other hand, they experienced social injustices such as unwanted sexual attention and unjust treatment of minorities. So those are the problems relevant to them. In my liberal bubble, people were tired of Hillary but no one hated her or her stances on things, but people really hated Trump.
If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
What anti-liberal rhetoric are you complaining about specifically?
Honestly, specifically that all liberals are these panicking social justice warriors who always miss the picture about "national security, economy, trade" in favour of "social issues". Two people can view the same person and come to completely different conclusions about their abilities because they've had vastly different life experiences. bio even mentions the labelling they're doing on twitter without realizing that he's doing it him/herself.
Democrats do it all the time, by picking on people like David Duke, or plenty of old-fashioned evangelical red-neck type people... Who frankly is a group that's kind of looked down upon by the general populace, and hence makes Republicans look "bad"... When there's plenty of very normal people out there supporting Trump, like literally 99.999% same as you, and yet they try to push that decisiveness.
Yes, not all liberals are the same, you guys have learned to tolerate that bunch, but for people like me, SJW are the epitome of what I hate about the current trend in social policy... And I'm not afraid to admit that at least of a sliver of why I liked Trump was because I disliked their thinking and didn't want these people to get their way.
On November 10 2016 12:32 Kamisamanachi wrote: Let me ask some of you who oppose Donald Trump due to his in your face approach. do u guys really think he is going to launch random nukes at any country without thinking. his policies might be strict, but i am pretty sure, the thing some people crying on twitter and facebook about him launching nukes on muslim countries is pretty much a hoax.
Honestly, I didn't really buy into much of the smearing of his character (racist, misogynist, etc.). I just found his lack of experience and tendency for irrational outbursts to be concerning, and found his anti-establishment front to be pretty questionable. His cabinet shortlist more or less confirms my belief that he isn't the anti-establishment candidate many of his supporters thought he'd be (though others are also fine with that).
EPT
