|
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. |
I think that the silver lining here, the most important one, is that this is going to be THE benchmark. There's absolutely no excuse left. The republicans always blame the democrats when shit doesn't get done, and now the democrats are mostly out of the picture, every branch of government is solidly controlled by the republicans.
If, in 4 years, the US is not "great"... if, in 4 years, those promises are unfulfilled, I think the republicans will need to do some serious introspection. And, this is a double edged sword. If in 4 years the US is doing significantly better, then perhaps I'll need to look into how I think about the world and I'll need to clean house.
I know that other people and me probably have vastly different beliefs about what constitutes a "great" America, but if Trump does even half what he said he would, we should see something reasonably spectacular happen. Let's see what happens.
|
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.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to so I'll just clarify my earlier post and hope that suffices.
Actually first off, Trump is not my president. Trump probably can't locate my country on the world map.
Now, the biggest most rational concern in my opinion as a non-US citizen is that we have no idea what he actually intends to do and how things will go moving forward. But the one thing that I almost positively certain of is that no matter what he intends to do, the organizations actually in charge of defense and military and intelligence would not allow him to nuke or start wars willy-nilly, especially against hotspots like the Middle East (in fact you don't have to be a genius to realize that Israel wouldn't want the US nuking the Middle East) or big dogs like Russia. It's simply not going to happen no matter what he says. These institutions have their own structure and way of doing things and they've been competent enough to enjoy more power and influence than the general public seems to realize. Even assuming Trump to be the nutjob that many people believe him to be, they would not let him take a big nasty shit on world balance and US national security by nuking Syria or Russia or China or any place that isn't an immediate threat to national security on that level. Even though technically he has the authority to do it.
I didn't call anyone idiots, and I most certainly did not bring up whether there will be any repercussions for minorities living in the US, immigrants of any kind, or any of that. I'm just saying, the DoD and the CIA and those guys will not let Trump nuke X country just because he wants to nuke X country. They're too smart and influential to allow something so cartoonishly stupid to happen. Trump may not be, but they certainly are.
So yes, that is definitely an unrealistic fear.
|
On November 10 2016 13:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +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?
This is the exact same logical conclusion I came to. Yes I wanted to avoid a Trump presidency but this path plays better for the democrats in the long run. Put up or shut up conservatives in power.
|
On November 10 2016 13:21 Djzapz wrote:
I think that the silver lining here, the most important one, is that this is going to be THE benchmark. There's absolutely no excuse left. The republicans always blame the democrats when shit doesn't get done, and now the democrats are mostly out of the picture, every branch of government is solidly controlled by the republicans.
If, in 4 years, the US is not "great"... if, in 4 years, those promises are unfulfilled, I think the republicans will need to do some serious introspection. And, this is a double edged sword. If in 4 years the US is doing significantly better, then perhaps I'll need to look into how I think about the world and I'll need to clean house.
I know that other people and me probably have vastly different beliefs about what constitutes a "great" America, but if Trump does even half what he said he would, we should see something reasonably spectacular happen. Let's see what happens.
Yes, America has spoken, and now we wait and see. A bad performance here, seeing no progress in the thinking of the party will be a huge blow to the party, guaranteeing the next 8 years, and imo quite easily 16. A good performance here, which I hope for, will hopefully open people's eyes to a new way of thinking about the world.
|
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.
I dislike this attitude because it sounds like you're strawmanning the entire social justice movement.
I don't want to get into this debate because I don't like it and I do a poor job at talking about it, but there's two sides. One side is the minorities that have felt like, and objectively have been, treated like minorities of varying degrees through no fault of their own. For example, black people born in poor black areas tend to do poorly in income, and also struggle to break out of the black communities that have been drawn up in the past that way through no direct fault of the new generation of people. The other side is the non-minorities, essentially unapologetically and incorrectly lumped into a large group called whites, who have been privileged with a statistically higher likelihood of doing "better" in life simply because they were born a non-minority, again through no fault of your own. So one side wants more social justice and equality, while the other side never felt like they were suppressing the other side because they themselves felt that their treatment of others has been equal and fair.
IMO this is where the rift stands between this SJWs and anti-SJWs. SJWs can't understand how anti-SJWs don't try to suppress their influences to bring minorities into equality. Anti-SJWs don't understand why SJWs seem to hate them for existing and not being shittier because in their eyes, they have tried to be fair and equal their whole lives to everyone, minority or otherwise. So that's where a lot of the rabid hatred between the groups come from.
Just trying to give you guys a fairer perspective. The sweet spot is for everyone is to find some way of making minorities more equal without disadvantaging whites. Of course, that's easier said than done, and often controversial, so instead we get affirmative action and such.
Of course, some SJWs take it way too far and poison the well and the word...
This John Oliver video (I know y'all don't like him) talks a bit about some issues and the controversies.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 10 2016 13:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That part is actually much, much simpler.
Look at Trump, who says "we should be friends with Russia" against the wave of how much he gets criticized for it. Then look at Hillary Clinton's Russophobic rhetoric and imagine how you might feel about that as a Russian. One of those options sounds really, really scary and that option is not Trump.
Of course there are ultra-nationalists who just like Trump for who he is but they are much rarer.
|
Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop. When you vote for a candidate who supports assaulting women, insulting minorities, and attacking people who disagree with you, this is the shit you get...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 10 2016 13:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 13:21 FiWiFaKi wrote: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. That part is actually much, much simpler. Look at Trump, who says "we should be friends with Russia" against the wave of how much he gets criticized for it. Then look at Hillary Clinton's Russophobic rhetoric and imagine how you might feel about that as a Russian. One of those options sounds really, really scary and that option is not Trump. Of course there are ultra-nationalists who just like Trump for who he is but they are much rarer.
I don't think it's that. I was born in Slovakia and the Eastern European people love Trump. Actually I'm sure that has like nothing to do with that. Russians for better or worse, don't like the western style brand of politics.
|
On November 10 2016 12:51 RealityIsKing wrote:
Technological advancement = more application w/ those tech thus creating higher paying job.
It's worth noting that an aggressive anti-immigration stance stands to do the most harm to tech companies.
Unlike many low-skilled labor industries, demand for high-skilled programmers and engineers in tech far exceeds the domestic supply. Contrary to what some people feel, tech is not an industry where foreigners are taking away jobs from equally- or more-qualified Americans. Furthermore, given the comparative ease of moving software compared to physical product, it's very easy for software companies to move labor abroad if the domestic environment isn't hospitable to them--because it costs them basically nothing to ship the finished product back.
It's highly preferable to create an environment where Silicon Valley wants to import Chinese and Indian skilled labor, as opposed to the alternative of them moving to China/India.
|
On November 10 2016 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop. When you vote for a candidate who supports assaulting women, insulting minorities, and attacking people who disagree with you, this is the shit you get... + Show Spoiler +
Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop
Come on dude... Assaulting people non-stop? We have nutjobs on both sides, I was watching the live stream of the protest at Trump tower, and there was fucked up shit there too.
|
On November 10 2016 13:30 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 13:26 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 13:21 FiWiFaKi wrote: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. That part is actually much, much simpler. Look at Trump, who says "we should be friends with Russia" against the wave of how much he gets criticized for it. Then look at Hillary Clinton's Russophobic rhetoric and imagine how you might feel about that as a Russian. One of those options sounds really, really scary and that option is not Trump. Of course there are ultra-nationalists who just like Trump for who he is but they are much rarer. I don't think it's that. I was born in Slovakia and the Eastern European people love Trump. Actually I'm sure that has like nothing to do with that. Russians for better or worse, don't like the western style brand of politics.
I still watch Russian news and have more than enough Russian family members. The rhetoric Hillary Clinton pushed forward really, really scares them. No one wants more war games that could end in people dying. People still remember damn well what it cost Russia to win WWII and no one wants it to come to that again.
East Europe, including Russia, definitely does have a stronger authoritarian streak than the West, especially West Europe. But imagine that people talked about your country the way Hillary talked about Russia and tell me you wouldn't be fearful that it might cause WWIII.
On November 10 2016 13:32 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:51 RealityIsKing wrote:
Technological advancement = more application w/ those tech thus creating higher paying job.
It's worth noting that an aggressive anti-immigration stance stands to do the most harm to tech companies. Unlike many low-skilled labor industries, demand for high-skilled programmers and engineers in tech far exceeds the domestic supply. Contrary to what some people feel, tech is not an industry where foreigners are taking away jobs from equally- or more-qualified Americans. Furthermore, given the comparative ease of moving software compared to physical product, it's very easy for software companies to move labor abroad if the domestic environment isn't hospitable to them--because it costs them basically nothing to ship the finished product back. It's highly preferable to create an environment where Silicon Valley wants to import Chinese and Indian skilled labor, as opposed to the alternative of them moving to China/India.
Well... H1-B immigrants are a brutally divisive topic that we could get into, but in this case I'm sure a lot of us would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't think it'd be great to talk about that here.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 10 2016 13:25 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:57 Buckyman wrote: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. I dislike this attitude because it sounds like you're strawmanning the entire social justice movement. I don't want to get into this debate because I don't like it and I do a poor job at talking about it, but there's two sides. One side is the minorities that have felt like, and objectively have been, treated like minorities of varying degrees through no fault of their own. For example, black people born in poor black areas tend to do poorly in income, and also struggle to break out of the black communities that have been drawn up in the past that way through no direct fault of the new generation of people. The other side is the non-minorities, essentially unapologetically and incorrectly lumped into a large group called whites, who have been privileged with a statistically higher likelihood of doing "better" in life simply because they were born a non-minority, again through no fault of your own. So one side wants more social justice and equality, while the other side never felt like they were suppressing the other side because they themselves felt that their treatment of others has been equal and fair. IMO this is where the rift stands between this SJWs and anti-SJWs. SJWs can't understand how anti-SJWs don't try to suppress their influences to bring minorities into equality. Anti-SJWs don't understand why SJWs seem to hate them for existing and not being shittier because in their eyes, they have tried to be fair and equal their whole lives to everyone, minority or otherwise. So that's where a lot of the rabid hatred between the groups come from. Just trying to give you guys a fairer perspective. The sweet spot is for everyone is to find some way of making minorities more equal without disadvantaging whites. Of course, that's easier said than done, and often controversial, so instead we get affirmative action and such. This John Oliver video (I know y'all don't like him) talks a bit about some issues and the controversies. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8yiYCHMAlM
As much as I would like to agree with you, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what Buckyman is responding to and the conflict between "anti-SJWs" and "SJWs".
|
On November 10 2016 13:25 Blisse wrote:
IMO this is where the rift stands between this SJWs and anti-SJWs. SJWs can't understand how anti-SJWs don't try to suppress their influences to bring minorities into equality. Anti-SJWs don't understand why SJWs seem to hate them for existing and not being shittier because in their eyes, they have tried to be fair and equal their whole lives to everyone, minority or otherwise.
It's only a problem when people resort to made-up words and labels and blindly shun large portions of the population (and not only that, but more on that later) instead of trying to empathize with and discuss in a civil fashion.
Unfortunately this is what the new internet culture created by the boom in social media sites has begotten us. Where all nuance is thrown out the window and shouted over from either side. Unfortunately for the people on the social justice side, they happened to come first, and their arrival coincided with said boom in social media, which attracted a lot of very unsavoury extremists to the cause. And when the most vocal and belligerent supporters of your cause are aggressive scum bereft of scruples, that tends to elicit a reaction, especially when the people they're vocal and aggressive against happen to be the majority of the population. That reaction became what is now referred to as the alt-right, and it too has attracted a similar amount of nutjobs from the complete opposite side of the spectrum, with a similar lack of ethics and scruples, and a similar deranged viciousness.
|
On November 10 2016 13:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 13:25 Blisse wrote:On November 10 2016 12:57 Buckyman wrote: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. I dislike this attitude because it sounds like you're strawmanning the entire social justice movement. I don't want to get into this debate because I don't like it and I do a poor job at talking about it, but there's two sides. One side is the minorities that have felt like, and objectively have been, treated like minorities of varying degrees through no fault of their own. For example, black people born in poor black areas tend to do poorly in income, and also struggle to break out of the black communities that have been drawn up in the past that way through no direct fault of the new generation of people. The other side is the non-minorities, essentially unapologetically and incorrectly lumped into a large group called whites, who have been privileged with a statistically higher likelihood of doing "better" in life simply because they were born a non-minority, again through no fault of your own. So one side wants more social justice and equality, while the other side never felt like they were suppressing the other side because they themselves felt that their treatment of others has been equal and fair. IMO this is where the rift stands between this SJWs and anti-SJWs. SJWs can't understand how anti-SJWs don't try to suppress their influences to bring minorities into equality. Anti-SJWs don't understand why SJWs seem to hate them for existing and not being shittier because in their eyes, they have tried to be fair and equal their whole lives to everyone, minority or otherwise. So that's where a lot of the rabid hatred between the groups come from. Just trying to give you guys a fairer perspective. The sweet spot is for everyone is to find some way of making minorities more equal without disadvantaging whites. Of course, that's easier said than done, and often controversial, so instead we get affirmative action and such. This John Oliver video (I know y'all don't like him) talks a bit about some issues and the controversies. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8yiYCHMAlM As much as I would like to agree with you, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what Buckyman is responding to and the conflict between "anti-SJWs" and "SJWs".
Ah yeah I just realized that, I think in my head I was actually responding to someone else's thing about hating/not understanding SJWs. Whoops, sorry.
|
On November 10 2016 13:33 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop. When you vote for a candidate who supports assaulting women, insulting minorities, and attacking people who disagree with you, this is the shit you get... + Show Spoiler + Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stopCome on dude... Assaulting people non-stop? We have nutjobs on both sides, I was watching the live stream of the protest at Trump tower, and there was fucked up shit there too.
This is really not the time to pretend that both sides are equally violent. They weren't remotely comparable before the election, and they're not comparable now. People are being targeted for being any of the minorities that Trump mocked (which is nearly all of them), and their justification is that our president-elect thinks it's okay. So it's no longer just about a random individual just being a violent, bigoted jerk; it's about these people also being enabled and empowered by Trump's rhetoric and success. Neither Hillary nor Bernie supporters could physically attack other people and justify those actions with "Hillary/ Bernie told me to/ said it's okay". That's exactly what's happening with Trump supporters.
|
On November 10 2016 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop. When you vote for a candidate who supports assaulting women, insulting minorities, and attacking people who disagree with you, this is the shit you get... + Show Spoiler +
I suppose you're going to report with equal fervor on the Hillary supporters setting fire to things in protest as well?
|
On November 10 2016 13:25 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:57 Buckyman wrote: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. I dislike this attitude because it sounds like you're strawmanning the entire social justice movement.
I wasn't aiming at the SJW movement per se, though they're certainly within the splash radius. I was referring to the broader trend of claiming the moral high ground by belonging to a group rather than by the merits of one's own actions.
However (and this is open to the whole thread, not just CosmicSpiral) I would like a frank assessment of the underlined:
For example, black people born in poor black areas tend to do poorly in income, and also struggle to break out of the black communities that have been drawn up in the past that way through no direct fault of the new generation of people.
Namely, how much of the statistical economic disadvantages of black people in America is attributable to:
A) Themselves, individually?
B) The rest of the black community?
C) Non-black Americans?
D) The government?
E) Previous (prewar) generations?
F) External forces and forces of nature?
|
On November 10 2016 13:32 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 12:51 RealityIsKing wrote:
Technological advancement = more application w/ those tech thus creating higher paying job.
It's worth noting that an aggressive anti-immigration stance stands to do the most harm to tech companies. Unlike many low-skilled labor industries, demand for high-skilled programmers and engineers in tech far exceeds the domestic supply. Contrary to what some people feel, tech is not an industry where foreigners are taking away jobs from equally- or more-qualified Americans. Furthermore, given the comparative ease of moving software compared to physical product, it's very easy for software companies to move labor abroad if the domestic environment isn't hospitable to them--because it costs them basically nothing to ship the finished product back. It's highly preferable to create an environment where Silicon Valley wants to import Chinese and Indian skilled labor, as opposed to the alternative of them moving to China/India.
I think we shouldn't have such a simplistic view on the situation. I agree with you that the tech industry suffers hard from it, but the idea is particularly to limit immigration from people who we don't see as very valuable. So say the US brings in a smart kid from India, maybe we let him in to go to Harvard, but make it more difficult for his parents or his grandparents to come over. We make it more difficult for Mexicans without an education, or raise standards to enter from other countries. Particularly the key is to stop immigration from extremely low education areas, which just happens to mostly be Mexico, which brings over crime, drugs, more people who don't speak English, and just happen to take jobs from low class Americans. That's the first immigration issue, and the second one is bringing in people who don't assimilate and fit into the culture well... Currently, it appears that Islam is the one that struggles the most, and hence why it's being singled out. Point is, if you're here to make a better life, and willing to give up some parts of your way of life as the price, then great. Some people choose to hang on to some things very hard, and while that's fine, it's not in the best interest of the country. The more common ground we can find, the more unity there will be.
|
On November 10 2016 13:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop. When you vote for a candidate who supports assaulting women, insulting minorities, and attacking people who disagree with you, this is the shit you get... + Show Spoiler + I suppose you're going to report with equal fervor on the Hillary supporters setting fire to things in protest as well?
Are you really comparing sexual assault and physical violence against people to setting fire to a few garbage cans and spraying some graffiti? Vandalism takes a back seat to hate crimes, sorry.
|
On November 10 2016 13:22 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 13:06 Blisse wrote: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. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to so I'll just clarify my earlier post and hope that suffices. Actually first off, Trump is not my president. Trump probably can't locate my country on the world map. Now, the biggest most rational concern in my opinion as a non-US citizen is that we have no idea what he actually intends to do and how things will go moving forward. But the one thing that I almost positively certain of is that no matter what he intends to do, the organizations actually in charge of defense and military and intelligence would not allow him to nuke or start wars willy-nilly, especially against hotspots like the Middle East (in fact you don't have to be a genius to realize that Israel wouldn't want the US nuking the Middle East) or big dogs like Russia. It's simply not going to happen no matter what he says. These institutions have their own structure and way of doing things and they've been competent enough to enjoy more power and influence than the general public seems to realize. Even assuming Trump to be the nutjob that many people believe him to be, they would not let him take a big nasty shit on world balance and US national security by nuking Syria or Russia or China or any place that isn't an immediate threat to national security on that level. Even though technically he has the authority to do it. I didn't call anyone idiots, and I most certainly did not bring up whether there will be any repercussions for minorities living in the US, immigrants of any kind, or any of that. I'm just saying, the DoD and the CIA and those guys will not let Trump nuke X country just because he wants to nuke X country. They're too smart and influential to allow something so cartoonishly stupid to happen. Trump may not be, but they certainly are. So yes, that is definitely an unrealistic fear.
Basically what I meant was that your comment felt like you were just brushing aside all the nuclear trigger happy/deportation/anti-immigration the anti-Trump's feared/concerned of a Trump presidency as though they were unjustified and irrational. Because the nuclear concerns were played up even by Obama, and some of the rally chants were frightening. I remember some livestreams when Trump won were talking about how some people in the chain of command were trying to figure out if Trump told them to do something unconstitutional like deport all X, were they okay to ignore his orders. Those factors to me, did not make Trump's volatility with the nuclear codes, and the deportation stuff, sound unrealistic.
Saying it would be a hard task to do is a bit different from saying everyone scared was wrong and being unrealistic. Maybe the media's to blame, but I'm just saying I disagree with your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6x7U4gZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DqvEpwB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4PPBbG2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kHsOQAW.jpg)
