|
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 15 2016 03:05 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 02:17 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:53 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 10:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's pretty jarring to see systematic efforts elsewhere to marginalize any report of any racial or religious violence, including the real planned KKK March in North Carolina, as lying and/or a media conspiracy.
I mean, I don't even understand why people are so dedicated to rejecting a possible increase in these things; I can understand resistance to attributing them to Trump or making him responsible, but surely they do understand that it can be vindicating and motivating for the people out there who actually do think of Trump as a champion of the white race when he's going to be the next President?
I mean, if Clinton had won I wouldn't have been skeptical of all reports of graffiti on the doors of Young Republicans organizations in colleges. This is what happens when people tire of the media's relentless propaganda and cease giving a shit about what the media has to say. Like I have been railing about for years around here, when everyone's a racist, then no one's a racist then shut off their brains. 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:On November 14 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
I bet Trump is going to be the president that a lot of democrats wished Obama was. The bottom line is that Trump is left on a lot of issues, and he is more likely to get action on those issues than Obama. 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. lol @ 90%. The only prediction you've gotten right is that Trump won. Beyond that, you don't know what he's going to do. And I'm pretty sure you and others were denying that Pence was going to be so powerful. Remember, that was a media story that Kasich had been offered domestic and foreign policy, so it can't have been true. Of course Pence is going to be powerful - because he's the vice president. Not because the New York Times made up a story that Kasich would really be president. Other powerful figures in the WH will be people like Gingrich, Bannon, Priebus, Sessions, people who have been there all along. All obvious stuff. There's good reason to believe this is different than "yeah of course the VP is powerful". Well, I thought you had said we can't possibly have any idea what's going to happen. I now realize that doesn't apply to outcomes we don't like. The vice president has no authority to sign a bill or do basically anything else important. The president can just ignore him if he doesn't like what he's getting.
My point here is that policy-wise Trump is largely an unknown, and him giving other people unusually powerful roles in his administration is further evidence of that. If Trump is just the chairman of the board role, there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen. We could see this coming with news reports re Kasich being offered power, but you and others didn't want to believe news reports that might be bad about Trump, so you didn't believe that one about Kasich. But now Trump's VP is directing the transition effort (hugely impactful), as one example.
I don't know why anyone would cling to the notion that Trump is politically competent. Obama is about to spend more time with Trump than is customary, due to Trump being unaware of the scope of the presidency after talking with Obama about the job duties.
Imagine the calamities that could come from this administration's incompetence lol.
|
On November 15 2016 04:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
single payer isnt really the only/ best way to achieve effective universal coverage, though in its implemented cases it certainly does seem like a good solution. going swiss (basic required insurance plus supplemental) or german (multipayer) are other options and more possible to transition to from our current system.
Indeed. In the Netherlands we have that as well. It works fine. There are obviously a lot of inefficiencies and problems with it but large government programmes will always have that to an extent.
|
On November 15 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right. Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey". I'm legitimately puzzled why you're even asking this question. The left's policies have, either directly or indirectly, been negatively impacting the white working class for a a generation on economic and cultural levels. I think Bernie said it best this weekend: Show nested quote +“I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party can’t talk to the people where I came from,” he added. Source. Why do you think that he would even make such a statement? The proof is in the pudding, don't you think? Show nested quote +And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of. Let's keep it simple: "the left" is everything left of the political center in the US. My complaints have little to do with fringe groups so much as they have to do with what has become mainstream leftist politics in the US, which are inseparable from the democrat party.
Yup. As I thought. You can't actually do what I asked you to do.
Now I will watch as you say Obamacare and we then have a 10-page discussion over the effects, the intended effects and the goal of Obamacare. So to preempt that discussion, let's skip Obamacare and go to any one of the other policies that crapped on whitey, because you still seem to insist that they are both numerous and obvious.
|
On November 15 2016 04:37 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 04:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
single payer isnt really the only/ best way to achieve effective universal coverage, though in its implemented cases it certainly does seem like a good solution. going swiss (basic required insurance plus supplemental) or german (multipayer) are other options and more possible to transition to from our current system. Indeed. In the Netherlands we have that as well. It works fine. There are obviously a lot of inefficiencies and problems with it but large government programmes will always have that to an extent.
i just dont see how to make the anthems and unitedhealths part of the conversation if the conversation is about single payer. starving the beast seems like a monumentally stupid idea w/r/t to insurance. to continue with the analogy, a hungry beast is a dangerous one and we're stuck in the cage with it.
i am currently looking at the brazilian system and i kinda like it.
|
On November 15 2016 04:37 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 04:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
single payer isnt really the only/ best way to achieve effective universal coverage, though in its implemented cases it certainly does seem like a good solution. going swiss (basic required insurance plus supplemental) or german (multipayer) are other options and more possible to transition to from our current system. Indeed. In the Netherlands we have that as well. It works fine. There are obviously a lot of inefficiencies and problems with it but large government programmes will always have that to an extent.
Ziekenfonds was so so so much better than the semi-private solution the Netherlands has now.
Single payer Spanish model is great, with option for private if you want to skip the lines, or want supplemental coverage.
|
On November 15 2016 04:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right. Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey". I'm legitimately puzzled why you're even asking this question. The left's policies have, either directly or indirectly, been negatively impacting the white working class for a a generation on economic and cultural levels. I think Bernie said it best this weekend: “I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party can’t talk to the people where I came from,” he added. Source. Why do you think that he would even make such a statement? The proof is in the pudding, don't you think? And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of. Let's keep it simple: "the left" is everything left of the political center in the US. My complaints have little to do with fringe groups so much as they have to do with what has become mainstream leftist politics in the US, which are inseparable from the democrat party. Yup. As I thought. You can't actually do what I asked you to do. Now I will watch as you say Obamacare and we then have a 10-page discussion over the effects, the intended effects and the goal of Obamacare. So to preempt that discussion, let's skip Obamacare and go to any one of the other policies that crapped on whitey, because you still seem to insist that they are both numerous and obvious.
I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in proving that 1+1=2. The left's alienation of whites is obvious to everyone but you. But because I'm a good sport, I'll offer just a few of the affronts off the top of my head:
Trade policy
Monetary policy
Energy policy
SJW activism (ie the popular demonization of white people)
Militant secularist policy (ie pushing "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion")
The Left's intentional targeting of minority groups for political support and downplaying of the importance of white voters
If you could be fucking bothered, you could just run a google search for "how the left alienated white voters" and find all sorts of answers to your question.
|
On November 15 2016 04:34 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 03:05 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 02:17 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:53 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 10:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's pretty jarring to see systematic efforts elsewhere to marginalize any report of any racial or religious violence, including the real planned KKK March in North Carolina, as lying and/or a media conspiracy.
I mean, I don't even understand why people are so dedicated to rejecting a possible increase in these things; I can understand resistance to attributing them to Trump or making him responsible, but surely they do understand that it can be vindicating and motivating for the people out there who actually do think of Trump as a champion of the white race when he's going to be the next President?
I mean, if Clinton had won I wouldn't have been skeptical of all reports of graffiti on the doors of Young Republicans organizations in colleges. This is what happens when people tire of the media's relentless propaganda and cease giving a shit about what the media has to say. Like I have been railing about for years around here, when everyone's a racist, then no one's a racist then shut off their brains. 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:On November 14 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
I bet Trump is going to be the president that a lot of democrats wished Obama was. The bottom line is that Trump is left on a lot of issues, and he is more likely to get action on those issues than Obama. 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. lol @ 90%. The only prediction you've gotten right is that Trump won. Beyond that, you don't know what he's going to do. And I'm pretty sure you and others were denying that Pence was going to be so powerful. Remember, that was a media story that Kasich had been offered domestic and foreign policy, so it can't have been true. Of course Pence is going to be powerful - because he's the vice president. Not because the New York Times made up a story that Kasich would really be president. Other powerful figures in the WH will be people like Gingrich, Bannon, Priebus, Sessions, people who have been there all along. All obvious stuff. There's good reason to believe this is different than "yeah of course the VP is powerful". Well, I thought you had said we can't possibly have any idea what's going to happen. I now realize that doesn't apply to outcomes we don't like. The vice president has no authority to sign a bill or do basically anything else important. The president can just ignore him if he doesn't like what he's getting. My point here is that policy-wise Trump is largely an unknown, and him giving other people unusually powerful roles in his administration is further evidence of that. If Trump is just the chairman of the board role, there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen. We could see this coming with news reports re Kasich being offered power, but you and others didn't want to believe news reports that might be bad about Trump, so you didn't believe that one about Kasich. But now Trump's VP is directing the transition effort (hugely impactful), as one example.
I discarded the Kasich "story" because it was absurd, not because of the implications. Trump's not an unknown, you just haven't paid attention to the last 35 years and especially the last 18 months. Before this, Christie was chair of the transition team. Oh my god, Chris Christie is in charge of something, I guess that just proves Trump is giving people unusually powerful roles. What this is essentially going to boil down to is simply that you think Republicans are bad.
On November 15 2016 04:34 Doodsmack wrote:
I don't know why anyone would cling to the notion that Trump is politically competent. Obama is about to spend more time with Trump than is customary, due to Trump being unaware of the scope of the presidency after talking with Obama about the job duties.
Mainly I look at the fact that he took over a major political party and became the most powerful person in the country in less than two years. No matter what happens, there will always be this nonsubstantive heckling.
-Trump appoints Joe the Plumber to interior secretary -> "What happened to 'the best people?'"
-Trump appoints Reince Priebus chief of staff. -> "What happened to draining the swamp?"
-Trump delegates something for Mike Pence to work on instead of sitting on his thumbs -> Trump is a puppet who doesn't really want to be president.
-Trump does everything himself -> This is reminiscent of fascism.
-Trump wants to repeal Obamacare -> I'm going to lose my healthcare just so the GOP can say they undid the work of the first black president!
-Trump wants to keep preexisting conditions -> He's reneging on his campaign promises, you all got punked!
-No former presidents endorse Trump. -> What a loser!
-Trump wants to consult Obama, as we'll be living in a world with 5 former presidents and their expertise will be available just like it's always been in the past. -> He doesn't know anything, haha!
The reason is people aren't that informed and don't want to talk about issues, or what they want, or what they think would be good. The question is never, do I think preexisting conditions can fit in the healthcare bill. It's, how can I turn whatever happened or was said today into a tomato and throw it. That's getting boring.
|
That's some serious white victimhood there.
|
On November 15 2016 04:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 04:38 Acrofales wrote:On November 15 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right. Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey". I'm legitimately puzzled why you're even asking this question. The left's policies have, either directly or indirectly, been negatively impacting the white working class for a a generation on economic and cultural levels. I think Bernie said it best this weekend: “I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party can’t talk to the people where I came from,” he added. Source. Why do you think that he would even make such a statement? The proof is in the pudding, don't you think? And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of. Let's keep it simple: "the left" is everything left of the political center in the US. My complaints have little to do with fringe groups so much as they have to do with what has become mainstream leftist politics in the US, which are inseparable from the democrat party. Yup. As I thought. You can't actually do what I asked you to do. Now I will watch as you say Obamacare and we then have a 10-page discussion over the effects, the intended effects and the goal of Obamacare. So to preempt that discussion, let's skip Obamacare and go to any one of the other policies that crapped on whitey, because you still seem to insist that they are both numerous and obvious. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in proving that 1+1=2. The left's alienation of whites is obvious to everyone but you. But because I'm a good sport, I'll offer just a few of the affronts off the top of my head: Trade policy Monetary policy Energy policy SJW activism (ie the popular demonization of white people) Militant secularist policy (ie pushing "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion") The Left's intentional targeting of minority groups for political support and downplaying of the importance of white voters If you could be fucking bothered, you could just run a google search for "how the left alienated white voters" and find all sorts of answers to your question.
I dont think any of these examples are particularly good, with the very small exception of energy policy and pandering to minority groups, which likely has a bigger role to play in the "feeling" of disenfranchisement by the white democratic constituency.
Trade policy (ill assume you mean the likes of nafta as this is a broad brush to paint with) brought down prices of goods, so while jobs may have been lost assuming a net negative effect, and even more so assuming that negative effect had a larger impact in the white population specifically is a bit of a stretch.
Monetary policy is extremely vague and I think in general it is impacting all races equally.
Energy policy ehhhh. I guess... we have been rough on the standards for the generated power which has definitely affected mining towns that tend to be overwhelmingly white.
SJW, I dont think white people are demonized, I think racists, sexists, and general bullies get called out for their poor behavior. Sometimes they are white, sometimes they are not. doesn't make them lest sexist, or racist, and it doesn't make the SJW's complain any less.
Secular policy has zero bearing on the color of your skin. so dont lump in jesus getting ignored with whitey getting ignored. and while we're talking about it, your framing of "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion" is silly. All most people ask for is not to be bound by the religious rules of someone else's God. If your laws are full of references to your religion how am i free to follow my own. sure there are lines that must be drawn across common grounds, and sure there are people who take that ideal too far, but in general this has nothing to do with white or non white so it doesn't belong here.
like i said, theres a little too much pandering going on on both sides. The republicans pander to the religious right because they can use their social conservativism to court their votes. and the left is doing the same to black and hispanic voters on social equality etc.
|
On November 15 2016 05:12 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 04:34 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 03:05 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 02:17 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:53 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 10:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's pretty jarring to see systematic efforts elsewhere to marginalize any report of any racial or religious violence, including the real planned KKK March in North Carolina, as lying and/or a media conspiracy.
I mean, I don't even understand why people are so dedicated to rejecting a possible increase in these things; I can understand resistance to attributing them to Trump or making him responsible, but surely they do understand that it can be vindicating and motivating for the people out there who actually do think of Trump as a champion of the white race when he's going to be the next President?
I mean, if Clinton had won I wouldn't have been skeptical of all reports of graffiti on the doors of Young Republicans organizations in colleges. This is what happens when people tire of the media's relentless propaganda and cease giving a shit about what the media has to say. Like I have been railing about for years around here, when everyone's a racist, then no one's a racist then shut off their brains. 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:On November 14 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
I bet Trump is going to be the president that a lot of democrats wished Obama was. The bottom line is that Trump is left on a lot of issues, and he is more likely to get action on those issues than Obama. 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. lol @ 90%. The only prediction you've gotten right is that Trump won. Beyond that, you don't know what he's going to do. And I'm pretty sure you and others were denying that Pence was going to be so powerful. Remember, that was a media story that Kasich had been offered domestic and foreign policy, so it can't have been true. Of course Pence is going to be powerful - because he's the vice president. Not because the New York Times made up a story that Kasich would really be president. Other powerful figures in the WH will be people like Gingrich, Bannon, Priebus, Sessions, people who have been there all along. All obvious stuff. There's good reason to believe this is different than "yeah of course the VP is powerful". Well, I thought you had said we can't possibly have any idea what's going to happen. I now realize that doesn't apply to outcomes we don't like. The vice president has no authority to sign a bill or do basically anything else important. The president can just ignore him if he doesn't like what he's getting. My point here is that policy-wise Trump is largely an unknown, and him giving other people unusually powerful roles in his administration is further evidence of that. If Trump is just the chairman of the board role, there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen. We could see this coming with news reports re Kasich being offered power, but you and others didn't want to believe news reports that might be bad about Trump, so you didn't believe that one about Kasich. But now Trump's VP is directing the transition effort (hugely impactful), as one example. I discarded the Kasich "story" because it was absurd, not because of the implications. Trump's not an unknown, you just haven't paid attention to the last 35 years and especially the last 18 months. Before this, Christie was chair of the transition team. Oh my god, Chris Christie is in charge of something, I guess that just proves Trump is giving people unusually powerful roles. What this is essentially going to boil down to is simply that you think Republicans are bad. Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 04:34 Doodsmack wrote:
I don't know why anyone would cling to the notion that Trump is politically competent. Obama is about to spend more time with Trump than is customary, due to Trump being unaware of the scope of the presidency after talking with Obama about the job duties. Mainly I look at the fact that he took over a major political party and became the most powerful person in the country in less than two years. No matter what happens, there will always be this nonsubstantive heckling. -Trump appoints Joe the Plumber to interior secretary -> "What happened to 'the best people?'" -Trump appoints Reince Priebus chief of staff. -> "What happened to draining the swamp?" -Trump delegates something for Mike Pence to work on instead of sitting on his thumbs -> Trump is a puppet who doesn't really want to be president. -Trump does everything himself -> This is reminiscent of fascism. -Trump wants to repeal Obamacare -> I'm going to lose my healthcare just so the GOP can say they undid the work of the first black president! -Trump wants to keep preexisting conditions -> He's reneging on his campaign promises, you all got punked! -No former presidents endorse Trump. -> What a loser! -Trump wants to consult Obama, as we'll be living in a world with 5 former presidents and their expertise will be available just like it's always been in the past. -> He doesn't know anything, haha! The reason is people aren't that informed and don't want to talk about issues, or what they want, or what they think would be good. The question is never, do I think preexisting conditions can fit in the healthcare bill. It's, how can I turn whatever happened or was said today into a tomato and throw it. That's getting boring.
You are willfully ignoring evidence regarding Trump's knowledge and preparation, his ability to focus, and what his "chairman of the board" role means compared to the full presidential role you think he's assuming.
|
On November 15 2016 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2016 04:38 Acrofales wrote:On November 15 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right. Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey". I'm legitimately puzzled why you're even asking this question. The left's policies have, either directly or indirectly, been negatively impacting the white working class for a a generation on economic and cultural levels. I think Bernie said it best this weekend: “I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party can’t talk to the people where I came from,” he added. Source. Why do you think that he would even make such a statement? The proof is in the pudding, don't you think? And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of. Let's keep it simple: "the left" is everything left of the political center in the US. My complaints have little to do with fringe groups so much as they have to do with what has become mainstream leftist politics in the US, which are inseparable from the democrat party. Yup. As I thought. You can't actually do what I asked you to do. Now I will watch as you say Obamacare and we then have a 10-page discussion over the effects, the intended effects and the goal of Obamacare. So to preempt that discussion, let's skip Obamacare and go to any one of the other policies that crapped on whitey, because you still seem to insist that they are both numerous and obvious. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in proving that 1+1=2. The left's alienation of whites is obvious to everyone but you. But because I'm a good sport, I'll offer just a few of the affronts off the top of my head: Trade policy Monetary policy Energy policy SJW activism (ie the popular demonization of white people) Militant secularist policy (ie pushing "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion") The Left's intentional targeting of minority groups for political support and downplaying of the importance of white voters If you could be fucking bothered, you could just run a google search for "how the left alienated white voters" and find all sorts of answers to your question. I dont think any of these examples are particularly good, with the very small exception of energy policy and pandering to minority groups, which likely has a bigger role to play in the "feeling" of disenfranchisement by the white democratic constituency. Trade policy (ill assume you mean the likes of nafta as this is a broad brush to paint with) brought down prices of goods, so while jobs may have been lost assuming a net negative effect, and even more so assuming that negative effect had a larger impact in the white population specifically is a bit of a stretch. Monetary policy is extremely vague and I think in general it is impacting all races equally. Energy policy ehhhh. I guess... we have been rough on the standards for the generated power which has definitely affected mining towns that tend to be overwhelmingly white. SJW, I dont think white people are demonized, I think racists, sexists, and general bullies get called out for their poor behavior. Sometimes they are white, sometimes they are not. doesn't make them lest sexist, or racist, and it doesn't make the SJW's complain any less. Secular policy has zero bearing on the color of your skin. so dont lump in jesus getting ignored with whitey getting ignored. and while we're talking about it, your framing of is silly. All most people ask for is not to be bound by the religious rules of someone else's God. If your laws are full of references to your religion how am i free to follow my own. sure there are lines that must be drawn across common grounds, and sure there are people who take that ideal too far, but in general this has nothing to do with white or non white so it doesn't belong here. like i said, theres a little too much pandering going on on both sides. The republicans pander to the religious right because they can use their social conservativism to court their votes. and the left is doing the same to black and hispanic voters on social equality etc.
Do you realize how ridiculous this post is? It doesn't matter what you think regarding the validity of the above-listed grievances. What matters is what Average Joe White Voter thinks. Rationalize away the flight of the white working class from the Democrat Party all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the white working class has very clearly abandoned the Democrat Party en masse.
|
|
|
On November 15 2016 05:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 15 2016 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2016 04:38 Acrofales wrote:On November 15 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:
[quote]
Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right. Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey". I'm legitimately puzzled why you're even asking this question. The left's policies have, either directly or indirectly, been negatively impacting the white working class for a a generation on economic and cultural levels. I think Bernie said it best this weekend: “I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party can’t talk to the people where I came from,” he added. Source. Why do you think that he would even make such a statement? The proof is in the pudding, don't you think? And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of. Let's keep it simple: "the left" is everything left of the political center in the US. My complaints have little to do with fringe groups so much as they have to do with what has become mainstream leftist politics in the US, which are inseparable from the democrat party. Yup. As I thought. You can't actually do what I asked you to do. Now I will watch as you say Obamacare and we then have a 10-page discussion over the effects, the intended effects and the goal of Obamacare. So to preempt that discussion, let's skip Obamacare and go to any one of the other policies that crapped on whitey, because you still seem to insist that they are both numerous and obvious. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in proving that 1+1=2. The left's alienation of whites is obvious to everyone but you. But because I'm a good sport, I'll offer just a few of the affronts off the top of my head: Trade policy Monetary policy Energy policy SJW activism (ie the popular demonization of white people) Militant secularist policy (ie pushing "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion") The Left's intentional targeting of minority groups for political support and downplaying of the importance of white voters If you could be fucking bothered, you could just run a google search for "how the left alienated white voters" and find all sorts of answers to your question. I dont think any of these examples are particularly good, with the very small exception of energy policy and pandering to minority groups, which likely has a bigger role to play in the "feeling" of disenfranchisement by the white democratic constituency. Trade policy (ill assume you mean the likes of nafta as this is a broad brush to paint with) brought down prices of goods, so while jobs may have been lost assuming a net negative effect, and even more so assuming that negative effect had a larger impact in the white population specifically is a bit of a stretch. Monetary policy is extremely vague and I think in general it is impacting all races equally. Energy policy ehhhh. I guess... we have been rough on the standards for the generated power which has definitely affected mining towns that tend to be overwhelmingly white. SJW, I dont think white people are demonized, I think racists, sexists, and general bullies get called out for their poor behavior. Sometimes they are white, sometimes they are not. doesn't make them lest sexist, or racist, and it doesn't make the SJW's complain any less. Secular policy has zero bearing on the color of your skin. so dont lump in jesus getting ignored with whitey getting ignored. and while we're talking about it, your framing of "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion" is silly. All most people ask for is not to be bound by the religious rules of someone else's God. If your laws are full of references to your religion how am i free to follow my own. sure there are lines that must be drawn across common grounds, and sure there are people who take that ideal too far, but in general this has nothing to do with white or non white so it doesn't belong here. like i said, theres a little too much pandering going on on both sides. The republicans pander to the religious right because they can use their social conservativism to court their votes. and the left is doing the same to black and hispanic voters on social equality etc. Do you realize how ridiculous this post is? It doesn't matter what you think regarding the validity of the above-listed grievances. What matters is what Average Joe White Voter thinks. Rationalize away the flight of the white working class from the Democrat Party all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the white working class has very clearly abandoned the Democrat Party en masse.
To be fair you did switch your argument from "the left has crapped on whitey" to "Average Joe White Voter thinks the left has crapped on whitey".
|
On November 15 2016 05:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:12 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 04:34 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 03:05 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 02:17 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:53 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
This is what happens when people tire of the media's relentless propaganda and cease giving a shit about what the media has to say. Like I have been railing about for years around here, when everyone's a racist, then no one's a racist then shut off their brains. 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:On November 14 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
I bet Trump is going to be the president that a lot of democrats wished Obama was. The bottom line is that Trump is left on a lot of issues, and he is more likely to get action on those issues than Obama. 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. lol @ 90%. The only prediction you've gotten right is that Trump won. Beyond that, you don't know what he's going to do. And I'm pretty sure you and others were denying that Pence was going to be so powerful. Remember, that was a media story that Kasich had been offered domestic and foreign policy, so it can't have been true. Of course Pence is going to be powerful - because he's the vice president. Not because the New York Times made up a story that Kasich would really be president. Other powerful figures in the WH will be people like Gingrich, Bannon, Priebus, Sessions, people who have been there all along. All obvious stuff. There's good reason to believe this is different than "yeah of course the VP is powerful". Well, I thought you had said we can't possibly have any idea what's going to happen. I now realize that doesn't apply to outcomes we don't like. The vice president has no authority to sign a bill or do basically anything else important. The president can just ignore him if he doesn't like what he's getting. My point here is that policy-wise Trump is largely an unknown, and him giving other people unusually powerful roles in his administration is further evidence of that. If Trump is just the chairman of the board role, there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen. We could see this coming with news reports re Kasich being offered power, but you and others didn't want to believe news reports that might be bad about Trump, so you didn't believe that one about Kasich. But now Trump's VP is directing the transition effort (hugely impactful), as one example. I discarded the Kasich "story" because it was absurd, not because of the implications. Trump's not an unknown, you just haven't paid attention to the last 35 years and especially the last 18 months. Before this, Christie was chair of the transition team. Oh my god, Chris Christie is in charge of something, I guess that just proves Trump is giving people unusually powerful roles. What this is essentially going to boil down to is simply that you think Republicans are bad. On November 15 2016 04:34 Doodsmack wrote:
I don't know why anyone would cling to the notion that Trump is politically competent. Obama is about to spend more time with Trump than is customary, due to Trump being unaware of the scope of the presidency after talking with Obama about the job duties. Mainly I look at the fact that he took over a major political party and became the most powerful person in the country in less than two years. No matter what happens, there will always be this nonsubstantive heckling. -Trump appoints Joe the Plumber to interior secretary -> "What happened to 'the best people?'" -Trump appoints Reince Priebus chief of staff. -> "What happened to draining the swamp?" -Trump delegates something for Mike Pence to work on instead of sitting on his thumbs -> Trump is a puppet who doesn't really want to be president. -Trump does everything himself -> This is reminiscent of fascism. -Trump wants to repeal Obamacare -> I'm going to lose my healthcare just so the GOP can say they undid the work of the first black president! -Trump wants to keep preexisting conditions -> He's reneging on his campaign promises, you all got punked! -No former presidents endorse Trump. -> What a loser! -Trump wants to consult Obama, as we'll be living in a world with 5 former presidents and their expertise will be available just like it's always been in the past. -> He doesn't know anything, haha! The reason is people aren't that informed and don't want to talk about issues, or what they want, or what they think would be good. The question is never, do I think preexisting conditions can fit in the healthcare bill. It's, how can I turn whatever happened or was said today into a tomato and throw it. That's getting boring. You are willfully ignoring evidence regarding Trump's knowledge and preparation, his ability to focus, and what his "chairman of the board" role means compared to the full presidential role you think he's assuming.
I don't think you know what kind of president I believe Trump will be because you didn't ask and definitely weren't paying attention before. The first citizen president-elect of the US is in the middle of selecting a cabinet and you're here putting out jabs about him being ADHD. Reminds me of Bush looking into Putin's soul.
|
I really hate the #notmypresident
That's how democracy works. You don't get to protest Trump, if you're that down and out because he got elected, then vote in two years for Congress, donate to a cause you think needs help, engage in political discussions with people of differing views instead of comforting yourself with your friends in an echo-chamber.
Vandalism doesn't help
|
On November 15 2016 05:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 15 2016 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2016 04:38 Acrofales wrote:On November 15 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:
[quote]
Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right. Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey". I'm legitimately puzzled why you're even asking this question. The left's policies have, either directly or indirectly, been negatively impacting the white working class for a a generation on economic and cultural levels. I think Bernie said it best this weekend: “I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party can’t talk to the people where I came from,” he added. Source. Why do you think that he would even make such a statement? The proof is in the pudding, don't you think? And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of. Let's keep it simple: "the left" is everything left of the political center in the US. My complaints have little to do with fringe groups so much as they have to do with what has become mainstream leftist politics in the US, which are inseparable from the democrat party. Yup. As I thought. You can't actually do what I asked you to do. Now I will watch as you say Obamacare and we then have a 10-page discussion over the effects, the intended effects and the goal of Obamacare. So to preempt that discussion, let's skip Obamacare and go to any one of the other policies that crapped on whitey, because you still seem to insist that they are both numerous and obvious. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in proving that 1+1=2. The left's alienation of whites is obvious to everyone but you. But because I'm a good sport, I'll offer just a few of the affronts off the top of my head: Trade policy Monetary policy Energy policy SJW activism (ie the popular demonization of white people) Militant secularist policy (ie pushing "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion") The Left's intentional targeting of minority groups for political support and downplaying of the importance of white voters If you could be fucking bothered, you could just run a google search for "how the left alienated white voters" and find all sorts of answers to your question. I dont think any of these examples are particularly good, with the very small exception of energy policy and pandering to minority groups, which likely has a bigger role to play in the "feeling" of disenfranchisement by the white democratic constituency. Trade policy (ill assume you mean the likes of nafta as this is a broad brush to paint with) brought down prices of goods, so while jobs may have been lost assuming a net negative effect, and even more so assuming that negative effect had a larger impact in the white population specifically is a bit of a stretch. Monetary policy is extremely vague and I think in general it is impacting all races equally. Energy policy ehhhh. I guess... we have been rough on the standards for the generated power which has definitely affected mining towns that tend to be overwhelmingly white. SJW, I dont think white people are demonized, I think racists, sexists, and general bullies get called out for their poor behavior. Sometimes they are white, sometimes they are not. doesn't make them lest sexist, or racist, and it doesn't make the SJW's complain any less. Secular policy has zero bearing on the color of your skin. so dont lump in jesus getting ignored with whitey getting ignored. and while we're talking about it, your framing of "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion" is silly. All most people ask for is not to be bound by the religious rules of someone else's God. If your laws are full of references to your religion how am i free to follow my own. sure there are lines that must be drawn across common grounds, and sure there are people who take that ideal too far, but in general this has nothing to do with white or non white so it doesn't belong here. like i said, theres a little too much pandering going on on both sides. The republicans pander to the religious right because they can use their social conservativism to court their votes. and the left is doing the same to black and hispanic voters on social equality etc. Do you realize how ridiculous this post is? It doesn't matter what you think regarding the validity of the above-listed grievances. What matters is what Average Joe White Voter thinks. Rationalize away the flight of the white working class from the Democrat Party all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the white working class has very clearly abandoned the Democrat Party en masse.
unsurprisingly, I do'nt think it's that ridiculous at all.
There's a difference between: "The left crapped on whitey", and the "The left did things which some whites believe was due to racial animus." for purposes of voting, true it matters what the voter thinks, but not for purposes of facts. The questoin was the fact, alleged by you, that "the left crapped on whitey", whihc you have no substantiated; and the examples for which don't really hold up as being racially related at all for the most part.
you alleged a fact, you did not, in the point which was disputed, allege a perception that was unjustified by facts. unless I misread the thread-chain, which is possible.
Also, it really does matter whether the allegations are true or not. if someone blames you for their problems, but you are in fact NOT at all responsible for it, then that is a much different matter than if you were in fact responsible for it.
it's not rationalizing it away if the only reason for it is because of things that are not in fact true.
|
On November 15 2016 05:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 15 2016 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2016 04:38 Acrofales wrote:On November 15 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:
[quote]
Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right. Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey". I'm legitimately puzzled why you're even asking this question. The left's policies have, either directly or indirectly, been negatively impacting the white working class for a a generation on economic and cultural levels. I think Bernie said it best this weekend: “I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party can’t talk to the people where I came from,” he added. Source. Why do you think that he would even make such a statement? The proof is in the pudding, don't you think? And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of. Let's keep it simple: "the left" is everything left of the political center in the US. My complaints have little to do with fringe groups so much as they have to do with what has become mainstream leftist politics in the US, which are inseparable from the democrat party. Yup. As I thought. You can't actually do what I asked you to do. Now I will watch as you say Obamacare and we then have a 10-page discussion over the effects, the intended effects and the goal of Obamacare. So to preempt that discussion, let's skip Obamacare and go to any one of the other policies that crapped on whitey, because you still seem to insist that they are both numerous and obvious. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in proving that 1+1=2. The left's alienation of whites is obvious to everyone but you. But because I'm a good sport, I'll offer just a few of the affronts off the top of my head: Trade policy Monetary policy Energy policy SJW activism (ie the popular demonization of white people) Militant secularist policy (ie pushing "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion") The Left's intentional targeting of minority groups for political support and downplaying of the importance of white voters If you could be fucking bothered, you could just run a google search for "how the left alienated white voters" and find all sorts of answers to your question. I dont think any of these examples are particularly good, with the very small exception of energy policy and pandering to minority groups, which likely has a bigger role to play in the "feeling" of disenfranchisement by the white democratic constituency. Trade policy (ill assume you mean the likes of nafta as this is a broad brush to paint with) brought down prices of goods, so while jobs may have been lost assuming a net negative effect, and even more so assuming that negative effect had a larger impact in the white population specifically is a bit of a stretch. Monetary policy is extremely vague and I think in general it is impacting all races equally. Energy policy ehhhh. I guess... we have been rough on the standards for the generated power which has definitely affected mining towns that tend to be overwhelmingly white. SJW, I dont think white people are demonized, I think racists, sexists, and general bullies get called out for their poor behavior. Sometimes they are white, sometimes they are not. doesn't make them lest sexist, or racist, and it doesn't make the SJW's complain any less. Secular policy has zero bearing on the color of your skin. so dont lump in jesus getting ignored with whitey getting ignored. and while we're talking about it, your framing of "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion" is silly. All most people ask for is not to be bound by the religious rules of someone else's God. If your laws are full of references to your religion how am i free to follow my own. sure there are lines that must be drawn across common grounds, and sure there are people who take that ideal too far, but in general this has nothing to do with white or non white so it doesn't belong here. like i said, theres a little too much pandering going on on both sides. The republicans pander to the religious right because they can use their social conservativism to court their votes. and the left is doing the same to black and hispanic voters on social equality etc. Do you realize how ridiculous this post is? It doesn't matter what you think regarding the validity of the above-listed grievances. What matters is what Average Joe White Voter thinks. Rationalize away the flight of the white working class from the Democrat Party all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the white working class has very clearly abandoned the Democrat Party en masse.
Who ever said i disagreed as to what average joe white voter thinks. I totally agree with your list as to their perceived issues, and realistically theres nothing to disagree about to begin with as it was just proven by the election. You got asked by Acrofales to provide concrete examples of how the left has crapped on whitey, as it real things/decisions that were made that specifically impacted Joe White, then you list off all of these examples and I assumed you were answering the question, but I guess you were just listing off things that make Joe White mad.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 15 2016 05:32 Incognoto wrote:
I really hate the #notmypresident
That's how democracy works. You don't get to protest Trump, if you're that down and out because he got elected, then vote in two years for Congress, donate to a cause you think needs help, engage in political discussions with people of differing views instead of comforting yourself with your friends in an echo-chamber.
Vandalism doesn't help
If people don't believe they have any substantive influence in the day-to-day operations of everyday government, and they believe there are no entities in the news media that are not inherently partisan, then voting should naturally devolve into a means of personal expression. If your personal expression is denied by the results of the election, you deny the legitimacy of the results. Lasch was right all along!
|
On November 15 2016 05:32 Incognoto wrote:
I really hate the #notmypresident
That's how democracy works. You don't get to protest Trump, if you're that down and out because he got elected, then vote in two years for Congress, donate to a cause you think needs help, engage in political discussions with people of differing views instead of comforting yourself with your friends in an echo-chamber.
Vandalism doesn't help
Actually that is exactly how a good, free, and working democracy works. Lord knows how many times Obama was protested, were they as high profile? definitely not, but you better believe that they did happen. Don't like who is in charge? protest the shit out of it, and if you get enough voices together maybe he will change his mind on a position that will make you feel like he is your president again. That's what makes this country great.
|
On November 15 2016 05:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:20 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 05:12 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 04:34 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 03:05 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 02:17 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:53 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. lol @ 90%. The only prediction you've gotten right is that Trump won. Beyond that, you don't know what he's going to do. And I'm pretty sure you and others were denying that Pence was going to be so powerful. Remember, that was a media story that Kasich had been offered domestic and foreign policy, so it can't have been true. Of course Pence is going to be powerful - because he's the vice president. Not because the New York Times made up a story that Kasich would really be president. Other powerful figures in the WH will be people like Gingrich, Bannon, Priebus, Sessions, people who have been there all along. All obvious stuff. There's good reason to believe this is different than "yeah of course the VP is powerful". Well, I thought you had said we can't possibly have any idea what's going to happen. I now realize that doesn't apply to outcomes we don't like. The vice president has no authority to sign a bill or do basically anything else important. The president can just ignore him if he doesn't like what he's getting. My point here is that policy-wise Trump is largely an unknown, and him giving other people unusually powerful roles in his administration is further evidence of that. If Trump is just the chairman of the board role, there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen. We could see this coming with news reports re Kasich being offered power, but you and others didn't want to believe news reports that might be bad about Trump, so you didn't believe that one about Kasich. But now Trump's VP is directing the transition effort (hugely impactful), as one example. I discarded the Kasich "story" because it was absurd, not because of the implications. Trump's not an unknown, you just haven't paid attention to the last 35 years and especially the last 18 months. Before this, Christie was chair of the transition team. Oh my god, Chris Christie is in charge of something, I guess that just proves Trump is giving people unusually powerful roles. What this is essentially going to boil down to is simply that you think Republicans are bad. On November 15 2016 04:34 Doodsmack wrote:
I don't know why anyone would cling to the notion that Trump is politically competent. Obama is about to spend more time with Trump than is customary, due to Trump being unaware of the scope of the presidency after talking with Obama about the job duties. Mainly I look at the fact that he took over a major political party and became the most powerful person in the country in less than two years. No matter what happens, there will always be this nonsubstantive heckling. -Trump appoints Joe the Plumber to interior secretary -> "What happened to 'the best people?'" -Trump appoints Reince Priebus chief of staff. -> "What happened to draining the swamp?" -Trump delegates something for Mike Pence to work on instead of sitting on his thumbs -> Trump is a puppet who doesn't really want to be president. -Trump does everything himself -> This is reminiscent of fascism. -Trump wants to repeal Obamacare -> I'm going to lose my healthcare just so the GOP can say they undid the work of the first black president! -Trump wants to keep preexisting conditions -> He's reneging on his campaign promises, you all got punked! -No former presidents endorse Trump. -> What a loser! -Trump wants to consult Obama, as we'll be living in a world with 5 former presidents and their expertise will be available just like it's always been in the past. -> He doesn't know anything, haha! The reason is people aren't that informed and don't want to talk about issues, or what they want, or what they think would be good. The question is never, do I think preexisting conditions can fit in the healthcare bill. It's, how can I turn whatever happened or was said today into a tomato and throw it. That's getting boring. You are willfully ignoring evidence regarding Trump's knowledge and preparation, his ability to focus, and what his "chairman of the board" role means compared to the full presidential role you think he's assuming. I don't think you know what kind of president I believe Trump will be because you didn't ask and definitely weren't paying attention before. The first citizen president-elect of the US is in the middle of selecting a cabinet and you're here putting out jabs about him being ADHD. Reminds me of Bush looking into Putin's soul.
The issue is whether you CAN know what kind of president he will be, and my argument is that you can't and he's a dice roll. So you saying "but you didn't consider what kind of president I think he will be" is beside the point because my argument doesn't need to consider that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
