EPTThey are causing damage in response to something they can not change. The damage is directed towards a community that overwhelmingly supports the same things they do. That's why we voted blue. They are causing a lot of damage and breeding a lot of anger. Nothing will change. This is purely a negative event.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6209
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
They are causing damage in response to something they can not change. The damage is directed towards a community that overwhelmingly supports the same things they do. That's why we voted blue. They are causing a lot of damage and breeding a lot of anger. Nothing will change. This is purely a negative event. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On November 13 2016 00:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Yes, but WHY do you feel ashamed? Also who are this "we"? I am a Portland resident. I identify with my community. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:05 Doodsmack wrote: Wonder how the BernieBros and activists who supported Bernie and did not vote for Hillary feel now that a leadership team is taking effect. Guy who worked for AG Alberto Gonzales during the firing of US Attorneys is part of it. Now this is where they have meetings for the media with a "Make America Safe Again" slogan on a TV. Trump is the "Law and Order" candidate. US Attorneys, I'm going to take an educated guess are heavily involved in setting prosecution priorities. Trump has also talked about purging Obama's appointees. How is that social justice coming along? Not to take away from your point that Bernie people who voted Trump made a fairly big mistake, but SJWs mostly voted for Clinton. You're addressing a very small group of people. You could know that if you followed your own propaganda. Remember, BernieBros are the sexist ones, while SJWs are the ones who are too much against sexism! | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:10 Doodsmack wrote: Also have we talked about how "We don't have a country anymore" is an inherently racist statement? It's saying look at all these Mexicans. "Take our country back" means take it back from the brown skinned people who have been in the White House and going on welfare and crossing the border and suicide bombing and killing each other in gang warfare and having babies with no father around. That's the rallying cry of the core Trump electorate - "We don't have a country anymore" and "Take our country back". What are you basing this interpretation on? I would take it to mean "we aren't being represented, no one is looking out for our interests". | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
the protest may be happening in your community, but is it representative of your community? there's fringe groups everywhere. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17677 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:10 Doodsmack wrote: Also have we talked about how "We don't have a country anymore" is an inherently racist statement? It's saying look at all these Mexicans. "Take our country back" means take it back from the brown skinned people who have been in the White House and going on welfare and crossing the border and suicide bombing and killing each other in gang warfare and having babies with no father around. That's the rallying cry of the core Trump electorate - "We don't have a country anymore" and "Take our country back". speculation like this is why we have a secret ballot. Has the USA ever had an election where voters privacy was not protected? when was the secret ballot procedure first used in a US election and what US leaders set that procedure? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: speculation like this is why we have a secret ballot. Has the USA ever had an election where voters privacy was not protected? iirc ballots weren't always secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot#United_States looks like they weren't for the firts century or so. I also don't see how his point really relates to your point. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:05 Doodsmack wrote: Wonder how the BernieBros and activists who supported Bernie and did not vote for Hillary feel now that a leadership team is taking effect. Guy who worked for AG Alberto Gonzales during the firing of US Attorneys is part of it. Now this is where they have meetings for the media with a "Make America Safe Again" slogan on a TV. Trump is the "Law and Order" candidate. US Attorneys, I'm going to take an educated guess are heavily involved in setting prosecution priorities. Trump has also talked about purging Obama's appointees. How is that social justice coming along? Wonder when Hillary shills will remember telling Bernie supporters that they had to eat shit because Hillary was the only sure victory against Trump. Wonder when they will remember saying that HRC colluding with the DNC and the media to suppress the Bernie vote was just good b̶u̶s̶i̶n̶e̶s̶s politics. Wonder when they'll remember that they lost the election because the only interesting platform they had was "I'm not Trump!". Wonder when they'll remember that Hillary didn't say a damn thing for months at a time while egotistically assuming that people would be dumb enough to believe her sincerity as she plagiarized Bernie's platform. I wonder if they noticed that it didn't work. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Also, you seem more bitter than the hillary people are. isn't this the time for them to be bitter? Is jormund's text a good example of passive aggressive? or is it too blatant for that? It feels like there's a term which describes it well, so if it's not passive-aggressive what is it? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:41 zlefin wrote: jormund -> I wonder who the hillary shills are. I don't remember most people here saying stuff like that, though maybe there was one. Also, you seem more bitter than the hillary people are. isn't this the time for them to be bitter? Is jormund's text a good example of passive aggressive? or is it too blatant for that? It feels like there's a term which describes it well, so if it's not passive-aggressive what is it? You don't? Cause I remember it pretty vividly. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17677 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:29 zlefin wrote: iirc ballots weren't always secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot#United_States looks like they weren't for the firts century or so. I also don't see how his point really relates to your point. if its a secret ballot you are only speculating on the motives of the voters and any claim to know what any group of voters motives are is off base. lots of "experts" were falling all over themselves to declare Clinton the prez based on all these ultra accurate predictive models and surveys. As we see "experts" get it wrong. the turn out for the election was "meh" and yet there is all this violence on both sides by both trump and clinton supporters angry at the "other side". now, had turn out been sky high and the result by a razor thin margin i might have some degree of tolerance for this after the fact violence. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:38 Jormundr wrote: Wonder when Hillary shills will remember telling Bernie supporters that they had to eat shit because Hillary was the only sure victory against Trump. Wonder when they will remember saying that HRC colluding with the DNC and the media to suppress the Bernie vote was just good b̶u̶s̶i̶n̶e̶s̶s politics. Wonder when they'll remember that they lost the election because the only interesting platform they had was "I'm not Trump!". Wonder when they'll remember that Hillary didn't say a damn thing for months at a time while egotistically assuming that people would be dumb enough to believe her sincerity as she plagiarized Bernie's platform. I wonder if they noticed that it didn't work. I just hope you voted for Hillary, because just look at what Trump is going to do to your cause. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:23 travis wrote: What are you basing this interpretation on? I would take it to mean "we aren't being represented, no one is looking out for our interests". "We don't have a country anymore" is very different from "we aren't being represented". | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:43 Nebuchad wrote: You don't? Cause I remember it pretty vividly. I remember some arguments that are similar to his, but with clear pointed differences to how he phrased things. Getting the subtle distinctions right are important for accuracy. Do you want to go over the differences in memory in detail? the people I remember mostly weren't "shilling", a term which people overuse anyways. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: if its a secret ballot you are only speculating on the motives of the voters and any claim to know what any group of voters motives are is off base. lots of "experts" were falling all over themselves to declare Clinton the prez based on all these ultra accurate predictive models and surveys. As we see "experts" get it wrong. the turn out for the election was "meh" and yet there is all this violence on both sides. 11 year old boy is beaten for saying he would vote trump. some protester gets shot in a non-violent rally against trump. now, had turn out been sky high and the result by a razor thin margin i might have some degree of tolerance for this after the fact violence. even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, a public ballot means you know who voted for what, it stil doesn't say WHY people voted for who they did. They may not have been truthful, they may not even know themselves why (at least not in full and accurate detail). I don't recall experts saying models were ultra-accurate, at least not the actual experts. actual experts in stats and polling know about the uncertainties involved. some talking heads may've said otherwise of course. I don't see why meh turnout affects violence; the meh turnout represents dissatisfaction and hatred of both candidates. violence is a manifestation of the hatred. I also see no reason why the turnout should affect whether to tolerate violence. Violence shouldn't be tolerated. If the candidate were Jeb Bush, would there be violence? I'd be inclined to think less, in that Jeb's more of a bland neutral than someone to hate. I wonder if we should add political affilitation to the list of things covered by the hate crimes statutes. opinions on that? I likewise wonder if we should add it to the workplace discrimination statutes, as I know some people were complaining about the workplace environment being unfriendly due to it being mostly one way or the other. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17677 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote: even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6288 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:47 Doodsmack wrote: "We don't have a country anymore" is very different from "we aren't being represented". It can just as well be about culture. Making it about race is your own interpretation nothing more. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17677 Posts
On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote: I don't see why meh turnout affects violence; the meh turnout represents dissatisfaction and hatred of both candidates. violence is a manifestation of the hatred. I also see no reason why the turnout should affect whether to tolerate violence. Violence shouldn't be tolerated. If the candidate were Jeb Bush, would there be violence? I'd be inclined to think less, in that Jeb's more of a bland neutral than someone to hate. my statements relate to my personal willingness to tolerate violence. so had something similar to the 1995 quebec referendum happened where it was an extremely close race with voter turn out over 93% i could tolerate/sympathize/empathize/understand to some degree some violence afterwards. in my view violence is always wrong so long as the 1st amendment is in place. if the 1st amendment is repealed its time to get violent and in some cases violence becomes an ethical option. | ||
| ||
