|
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 12:52 CosmicSpiral wrote:
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).
I find this statement profoundly disturbing.
When has moral virtue ever come from how you were born rather than what you did after that? Only monarchies and religions get to make that claim.
|
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.
Strange, I don't remember things being quite so bad back then. Though I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly disgraceful I saw among the current winning group either...
|
On November 10 2016 12:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:52 xDaunt wrote: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. Strange, I don't remember things being quite so bad back then. Though I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly disgraceful I saw among the current winning group either...
Ask the few conservatives who are still around from back then. We remember.
|
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.
Yeah, Bernie was... I don't know. I really wonder how the candidates shape up in the future elections. I think candidates like him really hurt the Democrat chances. What Bernie had going for him is he was reasonably likeable, which could have possibly allowed him to beat Trump, but from policy perspective alone, I think that leftist perspective will get you killed in the general election by independents and zero republican vote.
Man, just field somelike like Obama, but slow down on the environmental protections, make a slight effort to reduce some government function (regulate, control peoples' lives less), and break the healthcare system and move towards a universal healthcare style thing, not paying insane insurance costs on a for-profit system. A bit more nationalism and protectionism wouldn't hurt either, slowing down the TPP and whatnot... Seems like even the liberal voters are siding with that now, so thank goodness.
|
On November 10 2016 13:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:57 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:52 xDaunt wrote: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. Strange, I don't remember things being quite so bad back then. Though I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly disgraceful I saw among the current winning group either... Ask the few conservatives who are still around from back then. We remember.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure I remember you being a conservative either. I swear I remember you being something of an Obama supporter - though you posted with the same concision that you do now, that made it difficult to tell.
|
On November 10 2016 12:56 Kamisamanachi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:42 207aicila wrote: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.
I wouldn't necessarily bet on that although it may be more likely than with Clinton.
|
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.)..
That's because you didn't want to. Trump made it clear in words. Leaders of white supremacist groups all said Trump was a rallying cry for them. He's on record at even the debates for showing signs of misogyny. Anyway I guess you're one of those people who won't have to deal with the repercussions of what Trump emboldened so you'll continue to be soulless.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 10 2016 12:56 Kamisamanachi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:42 207aicila wrote: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.
I don't understand this high-ground approach of "yeah our president would never actually do that". Well, I kinda do from what was mentioned earlier about anti-Trump's taking him literally but not seriously. But this idea that everyone who was actually scared of his racist/xenophobic/sexist remarks are a bunch of idiots for believing him because clearly he wouldn't do it is absurdly condescending.
Anyways, you guys should realize that foreign aid isn't just armaments. Specifically, foreign aid to places like Pakistan is used almost entirely for economic development. Now that said you may question how money is distributed, but typically foreign aid is more of a loan or a voucher, to trade in for weapons and training for example, which is how you try to make sure it's being used for its intended purposes. Anyways, foreign aid in general is really complicated, and we give a lot of money to a lot of countries, but so do a lot of other countries. We shouldn't put all foreign aid under the same blanket statement as we do our arms deals with Israel and such.
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/spends-billion-foreign/
|
On November 10 2016 12:52 FiWiFaKi 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. 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.
Well, the end of the state and local democratic parties is nigh, by all indications. It should be fun if they continue to win nationally and lose everywhere else.
|
I will say my favorite thing today was Mitch McConnell politely laughing at the idea of congressional term limits. I believe he called the idea a "non-starter", so there's at least some push back to Trump from the congressional GOP. He also refused to comment on the wall, saying he "wasn't going to talk about immigration today".
I think it's pretty safe to say that Mitch McConnell's supreme court gambit paid off massive dividends. He played the election perfectly, really.
|
On November 10 2016 13:08 Nevuk wrote:
I will say my favorite thing today was Mitch McConnell politely laughing at the idea of congressional term limits. I believe he called the idea a "non-starter", so there's at least some push back to Trump from the congressional GOP. He also refused to comment on the wall, saying he "wasn't going to talk about immigration today".
I think it's pretty safe to say that Mitch McConnell's supreme court gambit paid off massive dividends. He played the election perfectly, really.
The last thing elected Senators are going to do is term themselves out. They'll push back on anything that harms them directly.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 10 2016 12:57 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:52 CosmicSpiral wrote:
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). I find this statement profoundly disturbing. When has moral virtue ever come from how you were born rather than what you did after that? Only monarchies and religions get to make that claim.
It was the inevitable extreme as feminism and other movements representing minorities gained acceptance in the mainstream. To be fair, I'm rather Nietzschian when it comes to this stuff so I'm nonplussed about the result. The shift into its antithesis was going to happen, it was just a matter of how it would manifest.
|
On November 10 2016 13:04 mutantmagnet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:42 TheYango wrote: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.).. That's because you didn't want to. Trump made it clear in words. Leaders of white supremacist groups all said Trump was a rallying cry for them. He's on record at even the debates for showing signs of misogyny. Anyway I guess you're one of those people who won't have to deal with the repercussions of what Trump emboldened so you'll continue to be soulless.
Much like how everyone was interpreting Trump differently, and stuff like what building the wall meant, the White Supremacist groups can do that too, not a solid argument.
Feel free to cite specific examples of misogyny, as far as I can tell, he's done no worse than an above average normal member of public with some of his colleagues. I've cracked a racist joke before myself, doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see a world where we all get along, and don't judge on race/sex/religion/etc. I think Trump wouldn't mind the same.
|
On November 10 2016 13:08 Nevuk wrote:
I will say my favorite thing today was Mitch McConnell politely laughing at the idea of congressional term limits. I believe he called the idea a "non-starter", so there's at least some push back to Trump from the congressional GOP. He also refused to comment on the wall, saying he "wasn't going to talk about immigration today".
I think it's pretty safe to say that Mitch McConnell's supreme court gambit paid off massive dividends. He played the election perfectly, really.
Yes, he did play it right, and I hate that his standing is going to increase. As will Ryan's.
|
On November 10 2016 13:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 13:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 12:57 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:52 xDaunt wrote: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. Strange, I don't remember things being quite so bad back then. Though I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly disgraceful I saw among the current winning group either... Ask the few conservatives who are still around from back then. We remember. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I remember you being a conservative either. I swear I remember you being something of an Obama supporter - though you posted with the same concision that you do now, that made it difficult to tell.
You must have been high.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Interesting how invested in the election people were in Canada. The day of the election even the grade 5s and 3s downstairs were talking about the flaws of Clinton and Trump. And this morning you could feel the glumness among the junior high students when I walked through the halls. It was actually palpable.
|
On November 10 2016 13:06 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:56 Kamisamanachi wrote:On November 10 2016 12:42 207aicila wrote: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. I don't understand this high-ground approach of "yeah our president would never actually do that". Well, I kinda do from what was mentioned earlier about anti-Trump's taking him literally but not seriously. But this idea that everyone who was actually scared of his racist/xenophobic/sexist remarks are a bunch of idiots for believing him because clearly he wouldn't do it is absurdly condescending. Anyways, you guys should realize that foreign aid isn't just armaments. Specifically, foreign aid to places like Pakistan is used almost entirely for economic development. Now that said you may question how money is distributed, but typically foreign aid is more of a loan or a voucher, to trade in for weapons and training for example, which is how you try to make sure it's being used for its intended purposes. Anyways, foreign aid in general is really complicated, and we give a lot of money to a lot of countries, but so do a lot of other countries. We shouldn't put all foreign aid under the same blanket statement as we do our arms deals with Israel and such. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/spends-billion-foreign/
While i can agree that some of the money from foreign aid goes to social welfare, it has been said from time to time that these countries use quite a chunk of that money to fund camps. the economy of these countries is weak to even support the basic education of people, let alone fund camps. so , some of aid money goes to the camps to train and grow them there. abottabad, where osama was caught is one of such places along with outskirts of Balochistan .
|
On November 10 2016 13:08 Nevuk wrote:
I will say my favorite thing today was Mitch McConnell politely laughing at the idea of congressional term limits. I believe he called the idea a "non-starter", so there's at least some push back to Trump from the congressional GOP. He also refused to comment on the wall, saying he "wasn't going to talk about immigration today".
I think it's pretty safe to say that Mitch McConnell's supreme court gambit paid off massive dividends. He played the election perfectly, really.
For this election, yes. But by losing the election and Congress, Democrats do get the consolation prize of wiping the slate clean of the Clinton legacy, their less honorable legislative leaders (*cough* Reid *uncough*), and many of their other policy and campaign failures (identity politics is one I've hammered on for the last page). Meanwhile the Republicans don't get to make people forget what they had to do to get this victory, and in the near future that will backfire terribly.
Imagine the following two scenarios:
1. This one.
2. Clinton wins here, but a Trump clone runs against her in 2020 and wins.
Do you possibly see a path from (1) that ends better than a very likely (2) that we would have if Hillary won here?
|
On November 10 2016 13:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 13:01 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 13:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 12:57 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 12:52 xDaunt wrote: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. Strange, I don't remember things being quite so bad back then. Though I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly disgraceful I saw among the current winning group either... Ask the few conservatives who are still around from back then. We remember. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I remember you being a conservative either. I swear I remember you being something of an Obama supporter - though you posted with the same concision that you do now, that made it difficult to tell. You must have been high.
Huh. I guess intermittent participation makes it hard to remember who stood for what. I'm drawing a blank in trying to recall most of the participants from back then, much less what they stood for.
Looking back, I only remember about 5% of the actual posters. Memory does play tricks on you.
|
On November 10 2016 13:14 Falling wrote:
Interesting how invested in the election people were in Canada. The day of the election even the grade 5s and 3s downstairs were talking about the flaws of Clinton and Trump. And this morning you could feel the glumness among the junior high students when I walked through the halls. It was actually palpable.
Indeed.
The current system makes it very easy to be liberal imo. Just envision your utopia, give it no extra thought, and bam, you're a liberal.
To be a conservative in a larger, technology-based company inside the city, being a conservative is a lot harder to me, like you actually have to fight to make sense of it. I'm sure there's some ways where it's a difficult path to end up being a liberal, and vice versa an easy path to become a conservative (fuck the mexicans or muslims, tada you're a republican).
But yeah, I dunno, it seems like everyday I'm surrounded by forces and things that seem like voices of reason trying to push me to the liberal side. Just so happens that my current project involves a lot of eastern european people where the way of life just leads to a different type of thinking, same idea as to why Russians like Trump so much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
