|
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. |
United States15275 Posts
On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Some things objectively are things, and as uncomfortable as it may be (this is some really low-impact stuff), we can't shy away from calling something what it is, just because it's "racism".
Then you are quite aware that calling something "racist" is not an objective statement (and this is precisely why people avoid the subject), has certain demarcations, and in the current milieu it is a stronger pejorative statement than prejudice against other groups. Whether or not it's your intention, you are establishing a position at the expense of the conversation.
|
On November 29 2016 01:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Now given that I disagree with the position, I would be interested in finding out if you agree that: while you accurately describe a short term problem (our lifetimes give or take), that in the long run (when Generation Y/Millennial's grandkids will be in power) the demographics will be decidedly different?
I think the demographics will change, yes, and right now they look to be less favorable for "whitey" in the long run. I wouldn't be quite so certain of it as the left is though - even on something that seems as stable as demographics, changes can occur that will reverse the trends. The country will become more socially progressive in some ways, yes. We don't exactly know which social progressive policies will and will not survive 2-4 generations though. You can never tell for sure.
depends on the policy, some are hard to predict, some are pretty easy to imho. at least in a broad strokes form.
but most people can't estimate them well I'd agree on.
|
On November 29 2016 00:47 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2016 00:18 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that? Well we went a post without you insulting my intelligence, but now apparently I've insulted you by drawing an analogy between one political advocacy group and another, so seriously, let's drop it, okay? Clearly you have no desire to acknowledge that BLM messaging is not necessarily accomplishing its goals, and I've no desire to be repeatedly accused of rank ignorance. I think I've made my point clearly enough but you obviously don't think so, why not leave it at that? No, I'll be alright, you aren't dodging knowing what the NRA wants off the top of your head are you? Don't know how to prove I didn't google anything, so I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, although maybe off the top of my head is ignorant enough it'll be apparent I didn't cheat: The NRA wants the right to bear arms not to be infringed, notably with little or no concern for what that has to do with a well-regulated militia. That makes them mostly a group of opposition - opposed to gun waiting periods, opposed to regulating gun shows, opposed to stringent background checks, opposed to limiting high capacity clips. It seems like the natural extreme of their position would be allowing private citizens to purchase RPGs and hellfire missiles and nukes, and I don't know where they draw the line with rhetoric. I assume they say something like "military-grade gear" shouldn't be legal, with the notable exception of ARs. Of course, where they draw the line with what weapons should be illegal doesn't seem to matter much, because they seem to spend most of their time opposing gun control measures rather than supporting measures that expand gun rights. How'd I do? + Show Spoiler [@TanGeng] +
Couldn't figure out how to PM you from my phone, but was that warning directed at me? If you want me to stop engaging with GH or something I'll happily oblige, just want to clarify what you want.
Ok so you know that off the top of your head, you assert, because of their marketing/messaging. You didn't understand why the NRA was a bad comparison, so let me ask some questions that I think may illuminate that.
When was the NRA created?
When was BLM created?
Since people have liked to use the random business example, would you say that comparing the brand recognition of Coca Cola and Jones Soda is a fair comparison on it's face? Or that Jones Soda isn't as well known as Coca Cola because they are doing a poor marketing job?
|
On November 28 2016 21:43 On_Slaught wrote:
Why are people even still arguing with xDaunt? He literally said that all the news is false and you have to read between the lines. Which is to say that you need to interpret it the exact same as him or you're just wrong, unlike him, the Arbiter of Truth. It's an unwinnable battle that isn't worth fighting anymore.
You may want to re-read my post....
On November 28 2016 06:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:45 hunts wrote:On November 28 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 06:36 Hexe wrote:On November 28 2016 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 05:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How do you conservatives feel about NPR? NPR is no better than the mainstream media outlets. NPR pushes the same narratives with the same bullshit tactics. NPR is pretty good, I like how they actually interview the small people and give them time on the air. But they do lean hard left NPR does its best to embarrass and humiliate conservative guests, and then goes into hardcore denial mode when they fail. The only difference between the hacks at NPR and other leftist media outlets is that NPR receives some public funding. So what news DO you actually trust? fox? breitbart? infowars? CNN? Huffpo? None. You have to read between the lines of any news source to really understand what you're being told.
The first thing that any legitimate history class teaches its students is the role of perspective and the author's point of view when reading historical sources. You can't truly understand a historical text unless you understand the context in which it is written and the agenda of the author. The same principles apply to journalistic sources, which is why no news source should be accepted at face value. They all should be read with a critical eye. And what you'll find as you read different news stories on the same issue is the emergence of narratives that you would have missed had you only read one news story. Only then will you be in a position to catch a real glimpse of what is the truth.
|
There is "read between the lines" and then there is "invent a completely new text because the actual text is actually just indefensible drivel"
NPR is definitely and objectively a better source of information than infowars or breitbart which are essentially the American version of the Pravda, and it's also pretty far ahead of CNN.
What you're selling as charity is more or less a desperate attempt to counter the problem of "liberals having all the facts" as even Newt Grinrich confirmed. The whole Trump campaign relied on undermining simple, plain truths by turning reality upside down, and now they have to continue doing it.
|
On November 28 2016 12:18 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote: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. This. You cannot evaluate trump with the mindset the USA was on the right path. We needed to shake things up not follow the status quo. You know whats scary? Hillary the warmonger, russia this russia that, Libya destruction due to swaying from the petrol dollar, or how about the complacency with the destabilization of the middle east? She straight up mentioned that russian hackers would be met with military intervention, you know how insane that is? Its like leaving out a basket of cookies on a crowded street with a sign saying dont touch. Except its a private email server with classified information. The crazy bitch was looking for reasons to go to war. Trump may not be experienced but he has a whole cabinet backing him up. Hes our leader now, a cheerleader. He wants to egg you on to greatness. User was warned for this post
Thank God our HUD secretary believes the tax system should consist of biblical tithing. We're in good hands.
User was warned for this post
|
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.
Your own posts in the span of two days say you "expect Trump to be good, if not great", he is a "roll of the dice", and he could well be an "utter failure". This is a good example of Trump supporters' logic shifting with the winds, much like his own.
|
On November 29 2016 01:36 Doodsmack 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. Your own posts in the span of two days say you "expect Trump to be good, if not great", he is a "roll of the dice", and he could well be an "utter failure". This is a good example of Trump supporters' logic shifting with the winds, much like his own.
I think a lot of people support the idea of Trump and what he represents relative to "the establishment" rather than what they think he'll actually do.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true.
|
On November 29 2016 01:36 Doodsmack 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. Your own posts in the span of two days say you "expect Trump to be good, if not great", he is a "roll of the dice", and he could well be an "utter failure". This is a good example of Trump supporters' logic shifting with the winds, much like his own.
I'm guessing that you have never taken a statistics class, because you clearly don't understand the concept of expected outcomes in probabilistic scenarios. There's nothing contradictory about my statements above.
|
Yeah she is a pretty rabid anti muslim from what I understand. I was reading about her ties to India among other things. She actually seems quite whacky, but pretty fuckin hot for a politician.
Also, this "active shooter" at osu (active stabber) is such a great advertisement for common sense gun regulation. Used a car and a knife - 8 injured with 0 dead. It's a direct response to the gun nuts who go "hurr durr knives and cars can be weapons. Are you gunna ban dem too?"
|
On November 29 2016 01:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Now given that I disagree with the position, I would be interested in finding out if you agree that: while you accurately describe a short term problem (our lifetimes give or take), that in the long run (when Generation Y/Millennial's grandkids will be in power) the demographics will be decidedly different?
I think the demographics will change, yes, and right now they look to be less favorable for "whitey" in the long run. I wouldn't be quite so certain of it as the left is though - even on something that seems as stable as demographics, changes can occur that will reverse the trends. The country will become more socially progressive in some ways, yes. We don't exactly know which social progressive policies will and will not survive 2-4 generations though. You can never tell for sure.
Yeah, I'm speaking more demographically (so issues colored with a racial lens). The carrying over of that into the neo-liberal left thinking minorities are going to keep blindly supporting them, is little more than a pipe dream. Save Trump actually bringing the apocalypse and "The left" becoming the party of "1/2 the roving death squads 2x the dirt cookie rations!".
Not sure where you fall on the "I got mine" to “Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” spectrum, but it seems like a tenuous position for those who find themselves tending toward planting trees.
That said, at least that's a position I can respect as being sincere.
|
On November 28 2016 23:06 farvacola wrote:given that our President-Elect is claiming that millions of votes were tabulated fraudulently, I guess it's time to push for a national recount 
What do you think of Greg Palast's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast) allegations that through the crosscheck program many black and latino votes were incorrectly not counted? For people who don't know the crosscheck program is a program to discover voters who illegally voted more than once in different states.
So the numbers from his site for Michigan, Arizona and North Carolina are:
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393
To me this is a high number of people who supossedly comitted electoral fraud - over 1 million people in just three states. Are these numbers comparable to previous elections?
|
On November 29 2016 01:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 01:36 Doodsmack 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. Your own posts in the span of two days say you "expect Trump to be good, if not great", he is a "roll of the dice", and he could well be an "utter failure". This is a good example of Trump supporters' logic shifting with the winds, much like his own. I'm guessing that you have never taken a statistics class, because you clearly don't understand the concept of expected outcomes in probabilistic scenarios. There's nothing contradictory about my statements above.
I don't believe that your posts had anything to do with statistics. The thrust of your posts has variously been that Trump is a total dice roll and you only care that the establishment got a middle finger, and that Trump will be amazing. More of the former than the latter from what I've seen.
|
On November 29 2016 02:03 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 23:06 farvacola wrote:given that our President-Elect is claiming that millions of votes were tabulated fraudulently, I guess it's time to push for a national recount What do you think of Greg Palast's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast) allegations that through the crosscheck program many black and latino votes were incorrectly not counted? For people who don't know the crosscheck program is a program to discover voters that illegally voted more than once in different states. So the numbers from his site for Michigan, Arizona and North Carolina are: Show nested quote +Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393 To me this is a high number of people who supossedly comitted electoral fraud - over 1 million people in just three states. Are these numbers comparable to previous elections?
I hadn't seen this before, thanks for the info. Looks compelling.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true.
Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right.
There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens.
|
On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens.
Who would really be upset if Trump picked her other than the neoconservatives who already hate Trump? I think that picking Romney would piss more people off.
|
On November 29 2016 01:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 01:36 Doodsmack 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. Your own posts in the span of two days say you "expect Trump to be good, if not great", he is a "roll of the dice", and he could well be an "utter failure". This is a good example of Trump supporters' logic shifting with the winds, much like his own. I'm guessing that you have never taken a statistics class, because you clearly don't understand the concept of expected outcomes in probabilistic scenarios. There's nothing contradictory about my statements above.
What evidence led you to the prediction that Trump is going to net a successful/ positive/ good/ great expected value as president, and what exactly would be your benchmarks or criteria for a successful/ positive/ good/ great Trump presidency? I'd imagine that a low bar like "try not to start WWIII" would much more easily be reached by Trump than a higher bar.
|
On November 29 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens. Who would really be upset if Trump picked her other than the neoconservatives who already hate Trump? I think that picking Romney would piss more people off.
People afraid of foreign sounding names for one.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens.
Rumors are rumors, yet it's an escape hatch from the other options that are all in hot water for various reasons. I think some are DOA and others have made too many enemies to be viable. Gabbard is weirdly in line with a lot of what Trump says he wants.
Here's an article by the way: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-who-you-think-she-is.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
