|
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 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.
I was about to make a post along similar lines to the one Trainrunnef made (except that I would have dismissed energy policy because (1) Fracking, (2) Ending dependence on coal has nothing to do with "crapping on whitey" and everything to do with ensuring "climate doesn't crap on whitey in the future", and (3) Subsidies for biofuel and renewables go overwhelmingly to whiteys too; probably in an even larger percentage than income from coal. They just go to different whiteys. In general your post seems to think that all whiteys live in rural Oklahoma or something, whereas the majority of whiteys live in metropolitan areas, where they are not other-fearing coalminers, but instead enjoy their cheap goods from China, have a bbq with their gay neighbours; all paid for by their average-income desk jobs.
However, you already preempted that, so I don't have to go into more detail. Because you moved the post from showing that "the left" "crapped on whitey" to rural America feeling disenfranchised by "the left", which is something else entirely. Rural white America has overwhelmingly been abandoned by politics, probably since the era of Reagan. Neither of the Bushes, nor Clinton, nor Obama did much of anything for them. Blaming that on "the left" rather than on "the establishment" is a gross misrepresentation, although "the right" certainly has done a good job of shoveling all of the blame onto "the left".
In closing, equating "whitey" with "rural America" and "the left" with "the establishment", are two categorical errors in your statement, even without going into details on any of the policies you suggested are "crapping on whitey".
|
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.
There's a difference between "the left has crapped on whitey" and "Average Joe White Voter feels like the left is crapping on him". If you think Average Joe is wrong, then you can't make the first claim you made. If you think he's right, then it actually doesn't matter that he thinks that, as you agree with him and we're talking to you now.
(edit: meh I see that 10 people wrote that already, sorry)
|
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
Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it.
If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken).
They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist.
Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate.
Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone.
|
Once it becomes clear that Trump will be unable to solve the problems of global inequality at the root of rural job loss and wage depression, it'll be interesting to see how the conversation changes.
|
American healthcare is just way to expensive in general,the cost for healthcare in the usa are like 4 times of what they are in England. There are 2 main reasons for this.
1 is the high insurance that people who practice medicine have to take,because in court they can be convicted to pay huge damages if something fails.
2 is the high cost of educating doctors in the usa,to become a doctor in the usa you have to invest much more money then that you have to invest in,for example, england. All these high costs have to be made back with as result high cost for even basic medical procedures.
When you go single payer everyone should be obligated to take the insurance. Its realy odd that it is not obligated in the first place since in the end society will have to pay for those that are not insured. They wont let people die on the street so they can go to the free doctors that are provided by some hospitals. But ya,i don't see single payer being viable in the usa when the healthcare costs are 4 times higher then what they should be,the cost will be way to high. The cost of the care itself has to come down to more reasonable levels.
|
Most single payer plans directly eliminate huge chunks of administrative overhead and then incorporate that into a lower overall price scheme. The downward pressure on costs is part of single payer's allure, not a reason to veer away from it.
|
On November 15 2016 05:50 farvacola wrote:
Once it becomes clear that Trump will be unable to solve the problems of global inequality at the root of rural job loss and wage depression, it'll be interesting to see how the conversation changes.
That's when a foreign policy crisis develops, it is very easy to scare this country into supporting a war.
|
On November 15 2016 05:42 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:31 oBlade wrote: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:[quote] 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.  [quote] 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.
That is not what I said. You told me what kind of president I thought he'd be and I said you were mistaken for putting words in my mouth. You can't explicitly tell me what I'm thinking and then react with "irrelevant" when I tell you you're making things up. Don't bring it up to begin with.
I'm aware your goal here is to interject with any given issue and use this reductive dice roll, nothing is knowable, you can all go home, argument. In this case it was against the simple idea that Trump leans left on certain issues. The rest of us would rather keep thinking.
|
On November 15 2016 05:28 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:22 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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".
Yeah, I can see it being read that way. However, my argument is really the objective -- ie that the left crapped on whitey.
|
On November 15 2016 05:50 farvacola wrote:
Once it becomes clear that Trump will be unable to solve the problems of global inequality at the root of rural job loss and wage depression, it'll be interesting to see how the conversation changes.
That will only ever happen if the GOP and trump dont have any scapegoats i.e. the left. to blame. This is why I want the left to play "yes man" to all economic and monetary policies proposed by the right, and hold the line on social reform progress that has been made.
|
i feel like we're in for the generic Republican platform for 4 years. Trump promised lots of big changes, but i don't feel he is in a position to deliver them. If he were 60 years old or younger and a big part of the Republican party machinery for 10+ years he might be able to pull off some of the stuff he promised. He can not do this at age 70 and essentially as an outsider to the party.
feel free to rip this "archie bunker style" opinion paragraph to shreds with detailed facts.
|
On November 15 2016 05:56 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:50 farvacola wrote:
Once it becomes clear that Trump will be unable to solve the problems of global inequality at the root of rural job loss and wage depression, it'll be interesting to see how the conversation changes. That will only ever happen if the GOP and trump dont have any scapegoats i.e. the left. to blame. This is why I want the left to play "yes man" to all economic and monetary policies proposed by the right, and hold the line on social reform progress that has been made.
Even if we don't play "yes man," it's going to be harder and harder for Republicans to pass the buck when they control almost all facets of government. Unfortunately, things are going to have to hurt in order for us to get there, I think, though your fears are well warranted if xDaunt's posts are any indication.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 15 2016 05:45 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +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 Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it. If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken). They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist. Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate. Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone.
I do wonder if we would be seeing protests over Trump's incompetence if he unequivocally supported gay marriage, minorities, and everything socially acceptable by the Left. They often have a tautological assumption that having their beliefs means one is intelligent, empathetic, and basically competent; if you don't share their beliefs, you are either ignorant or lack the necessary critical thinking skills/perception to be trusted. Of course this is true of both left-wing and right-wing proponents, but the former more strongly equates intelligence and morality as one and the same.
|
On November 15 2016 05:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:28 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 05:22 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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". Yeah, I can see it being read that way. However, my argument is really the objective -- ie that the left crapped on whitey.
I'm unsure if this means that your argument is the Objective claim: the left has crapped on whitey,
or if it means the objective is the argument itself about how blame is apportioned.
or maybe some other meaning.
can you clarify your statement?
|
InfoWars leader Alex Jones in a new video says President-elect Donald Trump called to thank him after winning the White House.
In a 6-minute long video posted Saturday to Infowars, Jones said Trump took the time to call him after speaking to multiple world leaders.
"'I wanted to talk to you to thank your audience and I'll be on in the next few weeks to thank them,'" Jones quoted the president-elect as saying.
The Hill has reached out to Trump's transition team to confirm the phone call.
Jones saw the call as a win for his website, which is known for promoting conspiracy theories.
"It shows he's not the average elitist," Jones said.
Trump has appeared on Jones's show in the past. His Democratic opponent in the presidential race, Hillary Clinton, used clips of Trump with Jones in an attack ad last month.
In the video, Jones took to his usual criticism of the mainstream media, citing Trump's victory as a defeat over the major networks.
"You are pathetic, Fox News, fake right-wing news. You are pathetic, CNN. You are pathetic, MSNBC. You are demoralized. You are defeated. You are pathetic. You are overrun," he said.
"Your hoaxes do not work on us. You are absolute enemies of this country. We are going to drain the swamp, and you know you're scum, and we're just here to let you know you're scum," he added.
Source
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Is the 60 minute interview v online somewhere. I mean the full interview?
|
On November 15 2016 06:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:45 Logo wrote: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 Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it. If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken). They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist. Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate. Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone. I do wonder if we would be seeing protests over Trump's incompetence if he unequivocally supported gay marriage, minorities, and everything socially acceptable by the Left. They often have a tautological assumption that having their beliefs means one is intelligent, empathetic, and basically competent; if you don't share their beliefs, you are either ignorant or lack the necessary critical thinking skills/perception to be trusted.
everyone, left AND right and elsewhere makes that assumption.
so I dispute your use of the "They" which references merely the Left.
technically quibble: I don't think your use of the word "tautological" is correct there.
as to your larger point. I'd say no; people don't actually protest over competence; at laest not prior to the point where it has been demonstrated in a severely hurtful way.
|
On November 15 2016 06:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:45 Logo wrote: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 Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it. If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken). They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist. Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate. Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone. I do wonder if we would be seeing protests over Trump's incompetence if he unequivocally supported gay marriage, minorities, and everything socially acceptable by the Left. They often have a tautological assumption that having their beliefs means one is intelligent, empathetic, and basically competent; if you don't share their beliefs, you are either ignorant or lack the necessary critical thinking skills/perception to be trusted.
I mean I don't really know the value of the question? A lot of people are protesting the anti-equality platforms Trump leveraged in the campaign more so than incompetence. And any perception of incompetence probably has more to do with Trump's ridiculous statements (see hair spray & climate change), speaking style, on inability to follow through complete thoughts when speaking off the cuff.
Even so the answer is probably yes as people protest all sorts of things... http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/president-protests-history/ I doubt the protests would be even a fraction as large though.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
|
On November 15 2016 06:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 15 2016 05:45 Logo wrote: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 Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it. If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken). They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist. Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate. Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone. I do wonder if we would be seeing protests over Trump's incompetence if he unequivocally supported gay marriage, minorities, and everything socially acceptable by the Left. They often have a tautological assumption that having their beliefs means one is intelligent, empathetic, and basically competent; if you don't share their beliefs, you are either ignorant or lack the necessary critical thinking skills/perception to be trusted. everyone, left AND right and elsewhere makes that assumption. so I dispute your use of the "They" which references merely the Left. technically quibble: I don't think your use of the word "tautological" is correct there. as to your larger point. I'd say no; people don't actually protest over competence; at laest not prior to the point where it has been demonstrated in a severely hurtful way.
He used it correctly; the logic he's indicting is self-referential in its method of proof, rendering it impossible to disprove on its own terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
