|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On 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.
I don't know man, some people just live in a fantasy world where they imagine that just because yes the president technically has the authority to do some of these things, that the various departments and apparatuses in charge of it would actually let him. Especially someone as clueless and childish as some people believe Trump to be.
And yes, some of those institutions may have a penchant for interfering with and destabilizing other countries (If you can guess which one I'm referring to, congrats, you've been paying attention over the last 30 years) but that's still a far cry from letting a theoretical loonie actually launch a nuke for little reason.
There's a lot of things to be concerned about, this isn't one of them.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 10 2016 12:39 Nevuk wrote:
I feel like there are much better ways to cover issues than... whatever this is
Better, but not more provocative. Which style gets more viewers in the end? 
On November 10 2016 12:41 Blisse wrote:
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.
It's not a matter of blame but self-image. As a poster wrote about before, the Democratic Party has constantly hampered itself by insisting it is a moral exemplar. The usage of identity politics to belittle and insult groups is especially hypocritical when used by a party that presents itself as empathetic and accepting. And that criticism also applies to liberals, who embrace multiculturalism and divergent viewpoint a la carte.
|
On November 10 2016 12:41 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:25 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: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 personal 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 urbanites. 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, in which case we're unable to have positive discussion and we recycle these problems.
The left should take an active role in ridding itself of this poisonous rhetoric. Ending it starts with acknowledging that they are just making things worse, and reforming. This loss should be taken as an opportunity for a fresh start, one not poisoned by the (bad side of the) Clinton legacy.
|
On November 10 2016 12:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:41 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:25 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: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 personal 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 urbanites. 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, in which case we're unable to have positive discussion and we recycle these problems. The left should take an active role in ridding itself of this poisonous rhetoric. Ending it starts with acknowledging that they are just making things worse, and reforming. This loss should be taken as an opportunity for a fresh start, one not poisoned by the (bad side of the) Clinton legacy.
Yea the right should worry about their own poisonous rhetoric before talking about the lefts.
|
The Democrats need to realize that we aren't in the 50s anymore. Their moral-high-ground approach is no longer a winning strategy and they should have figured this out a decade ago, but calling everything the Republicans do "wrong" or "immoral" just isn't changing anyone's minds anymore.
|
On November 10 2016 12:46 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:41 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:25 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: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 personal 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 urbanites. 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, in which case we're unable to have positive discussion and we recycle these problems. The left should take an active role in ridding itself of this poisonous rhetoric. Ending it starts with acknowledging that they are just making things worse, and reforming. This loss should be taken as an opportunity for a fresh start, one not poisoned by the (bad side of the) Clinton legacy. Yea the right should worry about their own poisonous rhetoric before talking about the lefts.
See, that's exactly the kind of way NOT to solve the problem. They should both be focusing on ridding themselves of the wrong kinds of people within their ranks. It's not a "you first" game.
|
On November 10 2016 12:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:39 Nevuk wrote:
I feel like there are much better ways to cover issues than... whatever this is Better, but not more provocative. Which style gets more viewers in the end?
Years go by and the message of the 1976 classic The Network only becomes more and more poignant. Only with a side of "yeah but only yours is like that, ours isn't".
|
On November 10 2016 12:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:46 Slaughter wrote:On November 10 2016 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:41 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:25 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: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 personal 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 urbanites. 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, in which case we're unable to have positive discussion and we recycle these problems. The left should take an active role in ridding itself of this poisonous rhetoric. Ending it starts with acknowledging that they are just making things worse, and reforming. This loss should be taken as an opportunity for a fresh start, one not poisoned by the (bad side of the) Clinton legacy. Yea the right should worry about their own poisonous rhetoric before talking about the lefts. See, that's exactly the kind of way NOT to solve the problem. They should both be focusing on ridding themselves of the wrong kinds of people within their ranks. It's not a "you first" game.
I just advocated that. You are the one lecturing the left about how they should clean their house.
|
On November 10 2016 12:42 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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).
I think it's all about broadening his appeal. Surely you'd agree that him picking quite a few established politicians will be seen as a good thing by more people than if he picked people like Dana White and Joe Rogan, and the chef in one of his hotels.
An election is all about talking about how the two parties are different, in reality, to echo roughly what Hillary said, 95% of what's out there unites us, there's just that little bit the separates us, and that's what gets all the attention. Time to bring it all in, and work together.
Have whatever saying you want for it, but it's all about having that one nation in unity. If Hillary won, or anyone on the democratic ticket won, I can't imagine there being unity for a long long time. I think that Trump will give us a more common cause to fight for, something that will bring people together, even though emotions are high right now, I truly believe that.
|
On November 10 2016 12:42 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:25 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: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.
Well I think there's something to be said at how the American political spectrum is ingrained with religion and how media outlets and campaigns and public pushed the direction of the debates. This has been the least policy focused election cycle I think, and the change in focus has exposed the rifts in our society. Hopefully this is some sort of tipping point.
|
On November 10 2016 12:46 TheYango wrote:
The Democrats need to realize that we aren't in the 50s anymore. Their moral-high-ground approach is no longer a winning strategy and they should have figured this out a decade ago, but calling everything the Republicans do "wrong" or "immoral" just isn't changing anyone's minds anymore.
I don't know if "the Democrats" as a whole haven't figured this out, it might just be Hillary's team. I base this on the fact that neither Bernie nor Obama was like this. They laid out their vision for their future and said "we stand for everyone" in a really charismatic way. Though Obama did the latter part better than Bernie for sure.
|
On November 10 2016 12:25 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: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.
I think all of those issues can be discussed altogether.
But however national security, economical development, technological advancement HAVE to be the top priorities because once you improve those, you improve society's many "injustices".
Having good security = less violence in the environment.
Great economy = less starving people, more entrepreneurship.
Technological advancement = more application w/ those tech thus creating higher paying job.
And its not like people don't care about "social injustices" but they have to be worth everybody's time.
For example the "wage gap" where the national earnings of a woman is 74% of a man can be simply explained by utilizing scientific facts, the family structure, and economical concepts.
So by the fact that people are still wasting time to say how this is "unjust" is a waste of everybody's time, attention, effort, and money.
|
On November 10 2016 12:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:46 TheYango wrote:
The Democrats need to realize that we aren't in the 50s anymore. Their moral-high-ground approach is no longer a winning strategy and they should have figured this out a decade ago, but calling everything the Republicans do "wrong" or "immoral" just isn't changing anyone's minds anymore. I don't know if "the Democrats" as a whole haven't figured this out, it might just be Hillary's team. I base this on the fact that neither Bernie nor Obama was like this. They laid out their vision for their future and said "we stand for everyone" in a really charismatic way. Though Obama did the latter part better than Bernie for sure.
Bernie's camp still takes the moral-high-ground approach in many ways, even if Bernie himself doesn't.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 10 2016 12:46 TheYango wrote:
The Democrats need to realize that we aren't in the 50s anymore. Their moral-high-ground approach is no longer a winning strategy and they should have figured this out a decade ago, but calling everything the Republicans do "wrong" or "immoral" just isn't changing anyone's minds anymore.
That would require them to rid themselves of their prescriptive approach to identity politics and dozen of other small things, and those issues may be too scattered for them to connect the dots. Furthermore, the Party may be able to purge itself of it but not their supporters. Moral preening via identity is an ingrained facet of social life these days (just think about how various groups fight over which one has the least privilege). It would be asking the Party to completely disassociate from the values of a major part of their constituency.
|
On November 10 2016 12:46 TheYango wrote:
The Democrats need to realize that we aren't in the 50s anymore. Their moral-high-ground approach is no longer a winning strategy and they should have figured this out a decade ago, but calling everything the Republicans do "wrong" or "immoral" just isn't changing anyone's minds anymore.
If Hillary took 1% off Trump, she'd have 300+ of the 538.
This election is like rolling a six sided die, rolling a one, once, and then complaining that a one is rolled too often. The democrats had every ability to win the election, and they would have not struggled one bit with any candidate that is not Hillary Clinton (or someone way out there like Bernie Sanders)... Just uncontroversial people like Tim Caine. Nobody on the Republican ticket had a chance to compete against someone like that.
The fall of the democratic party isn't nigh.
|
On November 10 2016 12:38 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Let's just say that, to the extent that some Trump supporters have taken victory laps around here, it's been far more subdued than what we saw from the other side in 2012.
|
On November 10 2016 12:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:38 TheYango wrote: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. Let's just say that, to the extent that some Trump supporters have taken victory laps around here, it's been far more subdued than what we saw from the other side in 2012.
I wasn't active in this thread yet in 2012, but I'd believe that, knowing the character of some of the left-leaning posters.
On November 10 2016 12:52 FiWiFaKi wrote:
The fall of the democratic party isn't nigh.
Sure, they just need to stop banging their heads against a wall with a losing strategy. This time it happened to burn them in a presidential election, but they've been behind in midterm elections for years.
|
On November 10 2016 12:52 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:50 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:46 TheYango wrote:
The Democrats need to realize that we aren't in the 50s anymore. Their moral-high-ground approach is no longer a winning strategy and they should have figured this out a decade ago, but calling everything the Republicans do "wrong" or "immoral" just isn't changing anyone's minds anymore. I don't know if "the Democrats" as a whole haven't figured this out, it might just be Hillary's team. I base this on the fact that neither Bernie nor Obama was like this. They laid out their vision for their future and said "we stand for everyone" in a really charismatic way. Though Obama did the latter part better than Bernie for sure. Bernie's camp still takes the moral-high-ground approach in many ways, even if Bernie himself doesn't.
You can't control your supporters. There's people from both sides who think the other side is morally wrong, enough who you do need to win over to your side. But it's your responsibility as a candidate to stand above that and appeal to people who find that divisive approach to be disgusting. Some candidates are better at that than others.
|
On November 10 2016 12:42 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +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. I don't know man, some people just live in a fantasy world where they imagine that just because yes the president technically has the authority to do some of these things, that the various departments and apparatuses in charge of it would actually let him. Especially someone as clueless and childish as some people believe Trump to be. And yes, some of those institutions may have a penchant for interfering with and destabilizing other countries (If you can guess which one I'm referring to, congrats, you've been paying attention over the last 30 years) but that's still a far cry from letting a theoretical loonie actually launch a nuke for little reason. There's a lot of things to be concerned about, this isn't one of them.
yea, i get it and this is what i have been thinking since last night too after seeing huge outburst of muslims saying "we are fucked" .
i am actually positive that a guy who is fully against radical islamic terrorism coming at the helm means now U.S. will work towards stopping the aid they send to countries like pakistan every year, which is being fully used for funding terrorist camps in the country.
|
On November 10 2016 12:51 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:25 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: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. I think all of those issues can be discussed altogether. But however national security, economical development, technological advancement HAVE to be the top priorities because once you improve those, you improve society's many "injustices". Having good security = less violence in the environment. Great economy = less starving people, more entrepreneurship. Technological advancement = more application w/ those tech thus creating higher paying job. And its not like people don't care about "social injustices" but they have to be worth everybody's time. For example the "wage gap" where the national earnings of a woman is 74% of a man can be simply explained by utilizing scientific facts, the family structure, and economical concepts. So by the fact that people are still wasting time to say how this is "unjust" is a waste of everybody's time, attention, effort, and money.
But again, the reality for most lefts is that security was fine, we are making decent progress in the Middle East given the situation, our economy is fine, businesses in my area are growing, technology is great. This is the urban rural divide and liberal bubble I've been talking about. We literally haven't been exposed to the reality of the income gap for ruralites because our idea of the wage gap was between urbanites and the 1%s which was not that bad. What we have been exposed to since everything else has been okay are the social issues like women feeling uncomfortable travelling alone and shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
