EPTThe memes are a hilarious, if nonsensical, aspect of this year's campaigns.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6223
| 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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The memes are a hilarious, if nonsensical, aspect of this year's campaigns. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 14 2016 11:05 blade55555 wrote: If people did actual research instead of relying on facebook/twitter/msn/CNN/fox/etc, they would have known a lot of this already. Anyone who's legitimately worried that gay marriage will be overturned or legal people being deported are just plain stupid and letting the media's fear mongering work on them. Whether he'll be an actual good president we shall see, but I personally believe he has a better chance at it than Clinton ever did. He seems very passionate about improving America. He's not going to take the President Salary, plans on taking very very little (if any) vacations during his presidency. I hope he does good and I feel like he can, but only time will tell. Smart people can think critically and see the sensationalism in news, and come to a decision on their own. It requires reading the news no matter the source and applying a filter, rather than disbelieving all the news from particular sources. Smart people can tell that Trump is a real danger. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote: Having brains means you know a KKK march is newsworthy. If you're willing to deny that, there's a lot you're willing to deny. Such as that Donald Trump is a deer in headlights right now. 200 retards walking down the street in the Carolinas aren't really newsworthy, no. Neither is David Duke. Nobody cares about David Duke. A guy with all of 3% support. And nobody will ever care about him again. This is something people have already been blaming the media for. That it was the news cycle, without which Trump didn't have free advertising, that elevated him. And that's a bad thing to do, legitimize someone you believe is evil, give them a platform, unless it's someone who's actually called himself a Grand Wizard and would never be relevant without getting invited on TV.  On November 14 2016 12:18 Doodsmack wrote: Might want to re-evaluate this one. We don't have much of an idea what is going to happen. Trump's inability to focus and taking a "chairman of the board" role means, like we suspected, others especially Mike Pence are gonna be making a lot of decisions. The notion that we can make all these reasoned statements of what President Trump will be and do is pretty silly. His incompetence still makes him a dice roll. And I hope Trump's supporters have the honesty to own the result. If you find it inconvenient to think your way through these issues, just don't trouble yourself. The rest of us will continue seeing our predictions come to fruition. Everything might feel like a roll of the dice to you, but if one side of the die comes up 90% of the time, we can be pretty confident. If you don't like Pence, you should have collectively been more psychologically open to his candidacy from the beginning, as some of us suggested (rather than going all-in on one candidate with one strategy), and you might have gotten a different running mate to go along with the best thing to happen to the GOP in years. If DJT had run as a Democrat in an alternate timeline, he would have won with the votes of a lot of the same people naysaying him now. But he probably smartly knew the Democratic nomination would have been out of reach. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
Also, apparently he isn't going to be taking a Presidential Salary. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Incidentally I think the Trump brand will be better for this. Few companies can say "our leader became the president" and that absolutely has some eccentric charm to it. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On November 14 2016 13:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote: So in the 60 minute interview Trump said he was fine with the legal status of gay marriage, which was passed in a conservative majority supreme court. Another thing people can stop worrying about. Also, apparently he isn't going to be taking a Presidential Salary. In that same interview he reaffirmed his commitment to appointing a justice that will help see Roe v. Wade overturned. He also cemented his support for that border wall of his. His policies are also a complete and utter disaster for the environment. Plenty of things to still be terrified about. | ||
|
HolyArrow
United States7116 Posts
| ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 14 2016 14:07 HolyArrow wrote: So, does anyone else find it very troubling that the executive chairman of an alt-right news website is going to be chief strategist and senior counselor of the President of the United States? The alt-right is like one step away from a White Supremacist movement. Yes, it's quite terrifying. Then again, we also survived Henry "the president should be able to order assassinations" Kissinger and Karl "we create our own reality" Rove. Take whatever comfort you can in that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On November 14 2016 09:54 xDaunt wrote: Priebus is easily the better choice for chief of staff. Trump needs a loyalist who can work with Capitol Hill to get his agenda passed. Priebus fits the bill nicely. Bannon will have plenty of continued strategic influence if Trump's 100-day agenda is any indication. Also, both Trump and Bannon clearly have a mutual interest in continuing their simbiotic relationship. Bannon gives Trump the Breitbart machine and Trump gives Breitbart the ratings. Breitbart is going to become a huge force in the media over the next four years. Preibus has full control, expect a Glen Beck like turn from Breitbart. All the people giving Glen flak are going to be surprised when he was just playing Trump's next move. The question is who does Trump use to replace himself in future negotiations, If Trump picks himself, his friends or the Republican party, it's bad, if Trump picks the American people and says "damn the parties" he might not end up that terrible. It would be pretty much dumb luck though, as he has no idea how the presidency works. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 14 2016 12:27 Doodsmack wrote: Smart people can think critically and see the sensationalism in news, and come to a decision on their own. It requires reading the news no matter the source and applying a filter, rather than disbelieving all the news from particular sources. Smart people can tell that Trump is a real danger. People, smart or dumb, have blindspots, lack sensitivity and sympathy, be condescending, be over-confident, or actually be evil. I don't put a lot of faith in people that confidently style themselves as the smart group or declare that smart people should have one set of believes in such a subjective and complex matter as Trump presidency. Trump's salary and the such are symbolic gestures that he can afford to make. For tax payers even such symbolic gestures are well appreciated. You have to hope frugality, efficiency, and cost limitation applies across the board and not only to his very limited 400k salary. As for everything else, it is going to be a wait and see. On thing I do believe though, is that this is as much Trump's personal presidential victory as it is a Republican victory. While Trump will have to reward his most loyal backers with a voice in his term, Trump has a great amount of personal reputation at stake in the presidency. For the sake of all of us, I hope that brings out the best in Trump with a good balance between ambitious change and practical prudence. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 14 2016 14:07 HolyArrow wrote: So, does anyone else find it very troubling that the executive chairman of an alt-right news website is going to be chief strategist and senior counselor of the President of the United States? The alt-right is like one step away from a White Supremacist movement. Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On November 14 2016 14:23 TanGeng wrote: People, smart or dumb, have blindspots, lack sensitivity and sympathy, be condescending, be over-confident, or actually be evil. I don't put a lot of faith in people that confidently style themselves as the smart group or declare that smart people should have one set of believes in such a subjective and complex matter as Trump presidency. Trump's salary and the such are symbolic gestures that he can afford to make. For tax payers even such symbolic gestures are well appreciated. You have to hope frugality, efficiency, and cost limitation applies across the board and not only to his very limited 400k salary. As for everything else, it is going to be a wait and see. On thing I do believe though, is that this is as much Trump's personal presidential victory as it is a Republican victory. While Trump will have to reward his most loyal backers with a voice in his term, Trump has a great amount of personal reputation at stake in the presidency. For the sake of all of us, I hope that brings out the best in Trump with a good balance between ambitious change and practical prudence. Trump's narcissism is our best hope. The guy wants adulation, that's one of the few things we know for sure about the guy. Shouldn't take long for him to read his audience and realize that what it will take to get it. It's going to be policies focused on working Americans. It's mostly a matter of whether he opens his audience to all of the US or stays focused on the right. So far he's showing several signs of moving toward reasonable, that's a death sentence for the Democratic establishment. If people are wondering, Ellison has been receiving scrutiny for being more pro-Israel than his Muslim religion would let on. The endorsements from Reid and Schumer were not helpful for anyone involved. Gabbard is a favorite with Nina Turner right there with her. Personally I'd like to see Nina with the DNC while boning up on FP for a run in 2020. I'd like less "God" in her platform, but at least it's the important parts of Christianity that she's focused on, as opposed to the old-school fundamentalist stuff. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On November 14 2016 14:24 xDaunt wrote: Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. Wouldn't you agree that siding with the more radical element and basically saying "they are better then you guys on the left" is something that provokes divisiveness? I find the "unwarranted divisiveness" kind of suspect as well considering the response of some right wingers after Obama was elected. If you want to truly "unite" then you should not say "i'm with crazy because they are on my side". Both sides should not promote their radicals. If more people said you know what you are on my side but you are being outrageous then the fringe maintains itself as the fringe. No one will do it though it seems because, as I said before, politics has become a war of ideologies opposed to an exchange of ideas to make something greater happen. Its like the god damn cold war but with ideas and no one wants to willingly disarm their nuclear (radicals) option. I don't agree with people like Maher who want liberals to take the gloves off and get mean. I want the majority to realize they have more in common with those on the other side of the spectrum then their own fringe. | ||
|
HolyArrow
United States7116 Posts
On November 14 2016 14:24 xDaunt wrote: Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. This isn't about partisanship. This stands on its own as disturbing, without injecting an ounce of partisan hysteria into it. The alt-right describe themselves as proponents of White Nationalism. Breitbart is a de-facto alt-right website. Bannon is the executive chairman of Breitbart. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On November 14 2016 14:39 HolyArrow wrote: This isn't about partisanship. This stands on its own as disturbing, without injecting an ounce of partisan hysteria into it. The alt-right describe themselves as proponents of White Nationalism. Breitbart is a de-facto alt-right website. Bannon is the executive chairman of Breitbart. I'd liken that bolded statement to saying "BLM is a black supremacist movement". They're both blatantly false things to say. 'BLM' and the 'alt-right' are very divided, mixed-bag movements that encompass a broad range of ideas, political beliefs, and motives. There are intelligent people in either movement but there's also plenty of racist nitwits just looking out for themselves. Saying 'the alt-right describes themselves as white-nationalists' is just a horribly ignorant and false thing to say that misses the point. I would say the same thing about BLM. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 14 2016 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote: Trump's narcissism is our best hope. The guy wants adulation, that's one of the few things we know for sure about the guy. Shouldn't take long for him to read his audience and realize that what it will take to get it. It's going to be policies focused on working Americans. It's mostly a matter of whether he opens his audience to all of the US or stays focused on the right. So far he's showing several signs of moving toward reasonable, that's a death sentence for the Democratic establishment. If people are wondering, Ellison has been receiving scrutiny for being more pro-Israel than his Muslim religion would let on. The endorsements from Reid and Schumer were not helpful for anyone involved. Gabbard is a favorite with Nina Turner right there with her. Personally I'd like to see Nina with the DNC while boning up on FP for a run in 2020. I'd like less "God" in her platform, but at least it's the important parts of Christianity that she's focused on, as opposed to the old-school fundamentalist stuff. I honestly think that the Democratic progressive wing really should not be looking for a less pro-Israel stance and I think this is a big problem in their ideology. When Bernie Sanders added James Zogby to the Dem platform committee that was definitely one of the biggest "what the fuck, Bernie?" moments I had. The Dems certainly pay lip service to the idea of being pro-Israel but hisstorically it's pretty clear that they want Israel to obey its wishes. Religiosity isn't a bad thing to have more of in a Dem platform. For all intents and purposes it is, at least in principle, a good virtue to have. | ||
|
HolyArrow
United States7116 Posts
On November 14 2016 14:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I'd liken that bolded statement to saying "BLM is a black supremacist movement". They're both blatantly false things to say. 'BLM' and the 'alt-right' are very divided, mixed-bag movements that encompass a broad range of ideas, political beliefs, and motives. There are intelligent people in either movement but there's also plenty of racist nitwits just looking out for themselves. Saying 'the alt-right describes themselves as white-nationalists' is just a horribly ignorant and false thing to say that misses the point. I would say the same thing about BLM. https://www.reddit.com/r/altright/ Read the subreddit description. They describe THEMSELVES as promoters of White Nationalism. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On November 14 2016 15:11 LegalLord wrote: I honestly think that the Democratic progressive wing really should not be looking for a less pro-Israel stance and I think this is a big problem in their ideology. When Bernie Sanders added James Zogby to the Dem platform committee that was definitely one of the biggest "what the fuck, Bernie?" moments I had. The Dems certainly pay lip service to the idea of being pro-Israel but hisstorically it's pretty clear that they want Israel to obey its wishes. Religiosity isn't a bad thing to have more of in a Dem platform. For all intents and purposes it is, at least in principle, a good virtue to have. Personally I think apartheid in Israel is unsustainable. From that starting point, I have little interest in any solution that ends in Palestinian people living under a government they can't control. Which means either Israel eventually loses the demographic war, or we get a two-state solution (this presumes Palestinian genocide isn't a feasible solution). That being some base positions, it means neither the Republican or Democratic positions on Israel are sustainable. Both end up with us funding an apartheid state and/or fueling the rage against us in the ME. I know it's a dick move and all, but where's Israel turning without us? Toward nuclear holocaust? Doubt it. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11279 Posts
| ||
| ||
