|
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 28 2016 10:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 10:14 zlefin wrote:On November 28 2016 10:00 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want). That specific platform seems to be reasonable enough, yes. I may or may not agree with specifically what is performed there, yet I'm not certain that it represents all of BLM (wiki says it's "associated with BLM" which can mean anything). A balanced view of those demands is something I could certainly get behind though. BLM itself, though, is kind of a vague catch-all which as a whole I think does a lot of things that I can't say I can support. Anyways, I think that's enough clarification for the moment. I'm not really in the mood to restart that whole discussion right now. Yeah BLM ends up as a catchall for all the negative stuff that comes out of oppression, as such, you see fit to paint the entire movement with it's worst contributors and say things like "I don't support BLM in the slightest" when you claim to support much/most of what they are actually calling for (as opposed to some people acting stupid at a bbq). It's easy for folks to associate a video from years ago to BLM but not so much their clear demands for reform, it strikes me as disingenuous. BLM isn't any worse than any group on the left or right, but it's easier for people to complain about their tactics than to recognize the widespread criminal behavior of police, and other systemic racism issues they are protesting. It's gross to me that people can actually complain about the protesters instead of being outraged they need to protest just to have their 4th amendment rights (among others) recognized. Let me rephrase it then: I don't support, as a whole, the group of people who call themselves BLM, because while I do sympathize with a lot of the things they want, the negative elements of that group shine through in a way that undermines their entire movement. A similar movement that wants the same things with more nuance and organizational effectiveness, I do support. by "shine through" do you mean the ones that you hear about? if not, then i'd like to know what you meant by it. That which is most apparent to those who are not particularly inclined to support nor oppose them, whose cooperation is necessary to create a consensus.
Have you ever considered that what is "most apparent" to you and "those who are not particularly inclined to support nor oppose them" isn't a complete or accurate representation. Perhaps what's "most apparent" is actually what the places you consume your information from are intentionally/unintentionally presenting/neglecting.
For instance, it's not hard to know campaign zero is basically the policy side of BLM (it's not centralized, not because no one thinks it would be helpful, but because people keep killing people we place at the center, among other reasons).
These aren't mysteries to anyone who's given any sincere effort to understand why they are in the streets. But you and plenty of others to this day still say things like "we don't even know what they want" as if it's not a signal of their own ignorance and an indictment of media, but a slight to BLM's failed messaging.
Some of the details may be new, but lots of the stuff being asked for isn't, it's the same stuff that's been expected since this country decided we were human beings (which took far too long).
|
On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day.
He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario.
If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? Worst from a stilistic point of view at least
|
On November 28 2016 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
These aren't mysteries to anyone who's given any sincere effort to understand why they are in the streets. But you and plenty of others to this day still say things like "we don't even know what they want" as if it's not a signal of their own ignorance and an indictment of media, but a slight to BLM's failed messaging.
I mean, with any other political advocacy group or marketing group, if the general population didn't know what they wanted, that would be considered a failure in messaging. I would totally acknowledge that other grassroots movements generally suffer from a similar problem of being decentralized and disorganized, with unclear policy specifics (the Tea Party, for instance, was all over the map when they first launched; I once saw a video of some guy dressed up as Uncle Sam explaining how we need everything from a gold standard to mandatory 2 years military service). I would also totally acknowledge that BLM gets judged by an unfair standard, maybe because of racism, or maybe because both parties can easily gain political points by throwing BLM under the bus.
But at a certain point, even if its a rigged game that's the game they got into playing, and if people really don't understand what they're about after all this time, they really ought to re-examine their messaging and consider making changes. I mean I've tended to dismiss extremists calling for cop killing and such as crazies and not representative of the movement, but to this day I don't actually know what their proposed solutions to police brutality are. It's possible that if I wanted to do a lot of research I could start to figure out who the bigger figures are in the movement, find out where their websites are and what their proposed policy changes might be. But once again, for a political advocacy group it's a failure of messaging if the average person has to spend a while doing research just to find out what specifically they want.
|
On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer?
I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election.
|
On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election.
So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying?
|
On November 28 2016 11:07 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
These aren't mysteries to anyone who's given any sincere effort to understand why they are in the streets. But you and plenty of others to this day still say things like "we don't even know what they want" as if it's not a signal of their own ignorance and an indictment of media, but a slight to BLM's failed messaging. I mean, with any other political advocacy group or marketing group, if the general population didn't know what they wanted, that would be considered a failure in messaging. I would totally acknowledge that other grassroots movements generally suffer from a similar problem of being decentralized and disorganized, with unclear policy specifics (the Tea Party, for instance, was all over the map when they first launched; I once saw a video of some guy dressed up as Uncle Sam explaining how we need everything from a gold standard to mandatory 2 years military service). I would also totally acknowledge that BLM gets judged by an unfair standard, maybe because of racism, or maybe because both parties can easily gain political points by throwing BLM under the bus. But at a certain point, even if its a rigged game that's the game they got into playing, and if people really don't understand what they're about after all this time, they really ought to re-examine their messaging and consider making changes. I mean I've tended to dismiss extremists calling for cop killing and such as crazies and not representative of the movement, but to this day I don't actually know what their proposed solutions to police brutality are. It's possible that if I wanted to do a lot of research I could start to figure out who the bigger figures are in the movement, find out where their websites are and what their proposed policy changes might be. But once again, for a political advocacy group it's a failure of messaging if the average person has to spend a while doing research just to find out what specifically they want.
It's was hard for me to believe this wasn't just trolling, then I realized that you probably didn't follow the thread that closely and you missed me addressing exactly what you just did after Legal did it and before you did it.
Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want).
So by "research" that you would have to do, it would be just "pay attention to the conversation you interject yourself into" and you would have already addressed your knowledge deficit.
Instead you chose to just opine that it takes hard work to know this stuff, while ignoring that even you couldn't be so much as bothered to pay attention to the conversation on the topic at a place you visit for leisure where the information was provided on a platter with fancy web garnish.
At a certain point people have to realize it's not the messengers that are the problem.
|
On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying?
I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy.
|
Norway28600 Posts
On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election.
Aren't you also here stating that over time, Trump's supporters are the ones who will be disappointed? 
|
On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying? I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy.
I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end.
|
On November 28 2016 10:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 10:14 zlefin wrote:On November 28 2016 10:00 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want). That specific platform seems to be reasonable enough, yes. I may or may not agree with specifically what is performed there, yet I'm not certain that it represents all of BLM (wiki says it's "associated with BLM" which can mean anything). A balanced view of those demands is something I could certainly get behind though. BLM itself, though, is kind of a vague catch-all which as a whole I think does a lot of things that I can't say I can support. Anyways, I think that's enough clarification for the moment. I'm not really in the mood to restart that whole discussion right now. Yeah BLM ends up as a catchall for all the negative stuff that comes out of oppression, as such, you see fit to paint the entire movement with it's worst contributors and say things like "I don't support BLM in the slightest" when you claim to support much/most of what they are actually calling for (as opposed to some people acting stupid at a bbq). It's easy for folks to associate a video from years ago to BLM but not so much their clear demands for reform, it strikes me as disingenuous. BLM isn't any worse than any group on the left or right, but it's easier for people to complain about their tactics than to recognize the widespread criminal behavior of police, and other systemic racism issues they are protesting. It's gross to me that people can actually complain about the protesters instead of being outraged they need to protest just to have their 4th amendment rights (among others) recognized. Let me rephrase it then: I don't support, as a whole, the group of people who call themselves BLM, because while I do sympathize with a lot of the things they want, the negative elements of that group shine through in a way that undermines their entire movement. A similar movement that wants the same things with more nuance and organizational effectiveness, I do support. by "shine through" do you mean the ones that you hear about? if not, then i'd like to know what you meant by it. That which is most apparent to those who are not particularly inclined to support nor oppose them, whose cooperation is necessary to create a consensus.
Then how do you know what is most apparent to those people? how do YOU as a person decide what you believe that to be?
I want to see something actual, it feels more like dodging you're doing.
My point is that you mostly see the crazy bad guys of every side, and you remember the ones more on sides you're predisposed to dislike, and they're often not representative.
Not that I like BLM much.
It's also hard for a leaderless movement to do well, since there's an inherent conflict in messaging.
|
On November 28 2016 11:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. Aren't you also here stating that over time, Trump's supporters are the ones who will be disappointed?
I've said that there's a risk of them being tremendously disappointed. Like I have said all along, Trump is a roll of the dice.
|
On November 28 2016 11:28 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying? I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy. I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end.
It's amazing what happens when you look at Trump's campaign with the slightest bit of charity! If all I did was look at Trump through the bullshit lens that the left has supplied us, then I'd probably be convinced that the world was about to end and need to be parked in a straight jacket.
|
On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election.
Which is why it makes little sense to admonish them for rejecting Romney almost as enthusiastically as Trump when you yourself have not spared anything to use for a dem candidate that would be far worse than Obama appeared to you in 2008, for which there's plenty of room. He was still infinitely more experienced and eloquent and respectful of your positions than a democrat version of Trump would be. You're just not expecting that to happen, just as they didn't.
|
I do find that people on the left of the politcal spectrum have a far worse view of the world then people on the right. I find the people on the right actually want to be"here" and enjoy where they are far more then the people on the left.
On November 28 2016 11:40 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. Which is why it makes little sense to admonish them for rejecting Romney almost as enthusiastically as Trump when you yourself have not spared anything to use for a dem candidate that would be far worse than Obama appeared to you in 2008, for which there's plenty of room. He was still infinitely more experienced and eloquent and respectful of your positions than a democrat version of Trump would be. You're just not expecting that to happen, just as they didn't.
Romney and Kerry committed the same sins in US politics, they were both dreadfully boring.
|
On November 28 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:28 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying? I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy. I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end. It's amazing what happens when you look at Trump's campaign with the slightest bit of charity! If all I did was look at Trump through the bullshit lens that the left has supplied us, then I'd probably be convinced that the world was about to end and need to be parked in a straight jacket.
he's gonna do a good job, and trigger a bunch of people along the way. If it so happens that he sucks, it at least comes with some laughs and popcorn unlike hrc
|
On November 28 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:28 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying? I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy. I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end. It's amazing what happens when you look at Trump's campaign with the slightest bit of charity! If all I did was look at Trump through the bullshit lens that the left has supplied us, then I'd probably be convinced that the world was about to end and need to be parked in a straight jacket.
Yea not really, you just have to watch him speak. What he says. Not whatever boogeyman media lens you claim is responsible for his bad image, but him and him alone. I hardly watch the news but i do watch clips of him speaking at rallys and him at the debates and its clear he is clueless, basically a very arrogant fool. He hasn't shown one bit of understanding about how things actually work. He is purely a populist and like most of them he doesn't actually know how to accomplish things he said so he will lean on those who do know. So GOP the wildcard edition? You can watch trump independent of the media and still come to the conclusion that he is a know nothing egotist.
|
On November 28 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:I do find that people on the left of the politcal spectrum have a far worse view of the world then people on the right. I find the people on the right actually want to be"here" and enjoy where they are far more then the people on the left. Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:40 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. Which is why it makes little sense to admonish them for rejecting Romney almost as enthusiastically as Trump when you yourself have not spared anything to use for a dem candidate that would be far worse than Obama appeared to you in 2008, for which there's plenty of room. He was still infinitely more experienced and eloquent and respectful of your positions than a democrat version of Trump would be. You're just not expecting that to happen, just as they didn't. Romney and Kerry committed the same sins in US politics, they were both dreadfully boring.
did you see the general mood of the two campaigns? The dems were the ones all hopeful and optimistic. It's the Right that has been super negative the last few years (probably a result of what party was in power as president). Dems think the US is fine but that we need to keep pushing to 'perfect' the union so to speak. The right thinks the country needs to be "made great again".
|
On November 28 2016 11:45 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:I do find that people on the left of the politcal spectrum have a far worse view of the world then people on the right. I find the people on the right actually want to be"here" and enjoy where they are far more then the people on the left. On November 28 2016 11:40 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. Which is why it makes little sense to admonish them for rejecting Romney almost as enthusiastically as Trump when you yourself have not spared anything to use for a dem candidate that would be far worse than Obama appeared to you in 2008, for which there's plenty of room. He was still infinitely more experienced and eloquent and respectful of your positions than a democrat version of Trump would be. You're just not expecting that to happen, just as they didn't. Romney and Kerry committed the same sins in US politics, they were both dreadfully boring. did you see the general mood of the two campaigns? The dems were the ones all hopeful and optimistic. It's the Right that has been super negative the last few years (probably a result of what party was in power as president). Dems think the US is fine but that we need to keep pushing to 'perfect' the union so to speak. The right thinks the country needs to be "made great again".
I don't agree with you. The last thing I would say about the dems in the last election was "hopeful and optimistic". I don't remember anything positive said about Hillary in a vacum nor did I see anything optimistic about what was coming for the nation. A lot of "this is where our country is if Trump is a candidate that has support" and "Vote for Hillary or you'll get trump". While the trump campaign was a lot of talking about what they would do when (barely if) they get elected and in power in washington.
|
On November 28 2016 11:54 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:45 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:I do find that people on the left of the politcal spectrum have a far worse view of the world then people on the right. I find the people on the right actually want to be"here" and enjoy where they are far more then the people on the left. On November 28 2016 11:40 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. Which is why it makes little sense to admonish them for rejecting Romney almost as enthusiastically as Trump when you yourself have not spared anything to use for a dem candidate that would be far worse than Obama appeared to you in 2008, for which there's plenty of room. He was still infinitely more experienced and eloquent and respectful of your positions than a democrat version of Trump would be. You're just not expecting that to happen, just as they didn't. Romney and Kerry committed the same sins in US politics, they were both dreadfully boring. did you see the general mood of the two campaigns? The dems were the ones all hopeful and optimistic. It's the Right that has been super negative the last few years (probably a result of what party was in power as president). Dems think the US is fine but that we need to keep pushing to 'perfect' the union so to speak. The right thinks the country needs to be "made great again". I don't agree with you. The last thing I would say about the dems in the last election was "hopeful and optimistic". I don't remember anything positive said about Hillary in a vacum nor did I see anything optimistic about what was coming for the nation. A lot of "this is where our country is if Trump is a candidate that has support" and "Vote for Hillary or you'll get trump". While the trump campaign was a lot of talking about what they would do when (barely if) they get elected and in power in washington.
do you realize the trump campaign was also very pessimistic and bleak about the world?
I agree clinton campaign under-talked about what they'd do in washington and needed more projection of hope in their campaign, but there's limits to that, as people repeatedly ignored policy discussions; so their actual plans don't mean much if noone listens.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump had a vision for what he said he wanted to do. It may not be the one you wanted but he definitely intended to make things change. And some people wanted what he was selling.
Hillary Clinton was nothing if not the status quo. She was the "vote for me if you want things to be pretty much the same as they always were" candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
