|
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. |
I mean I get the whole Clinton was shit candidate, SJW are going to far, racist is being overused, Obama was not our president rhetoric. But is that really worth having a president Trump and staff that:
- Objectively lies about many issues
- Don't care about objective press and are using obvious propaganda tactics to smother the truth
- Rather watches TV than reading Intel reports.
- Deny climate change, remove environmental protection laws so pollution (not just CO2 but water and land pollution too) will become a big issue
- Has a disdain for science
- Wants to sell and log national parks
- Unnecessarily ruins diplomatic relationships because he's a quickly angered, arrogant and rude.
- As billionaires really are not going to care about poor people (see Goldman Sachs appointees, relaxing financial oversight, decrease taxes for the 1%, Exxon Mobil CEO in cabinet, Education pick which only qualification is that she's filthy rich and donated many many millions)
- Has an unnatural liking for Russia and Putin in particular
- Is already warmongering Iran
I just don't see how that will make a country great again in any way
|
So to anyone with the intention of ever going into politics let this be a clear lesson. Everything you said can and will be used against you.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 04 2017 01:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I mean I get the whole Clinton was shit candidate, SJW are going to far, racist is being overused, Obama was not our president rhetoric. But is that really worth having a president Trump and staff that:
- Objectively lies about many issues
- Don't care about objective press and are using obvious propaganda tactics to smother the truth
- Rather watches TV than reading Intel reports.
- Deny climate change, remove environmental protection laws so pollution (not just CO2 but water and land pollution too) will become a big issue
- Has a disdain for science
- Wants to sell and log national parks
- Unnecessarily ruins diplomatic relationships because he's a quickly angered, arrogant and rude.
- As billionaires really are not going to care about poor people (see Goldman Sachs appointees, relaxing financial oversight, decrease taxes for the 1%, Exxon Mobil CEO in cabinet, Education pick which only qualification is that she's filthy rich and donated many many millions)
- Has an unnatural liking for Russia and Putin in particular
- Is already warmongering Iran
I just don't see how that will make a country great again in any way
You should understand that there is a reason why his approval ratings are so low. People don't really like him, it's just the reality of what happens when people hate both candidates.
Hell, even half the Trump supporters here have plenty of bad things to say about him.
|
On February 04 2017 01:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 01:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I mean I get the whole Clinton was shit candidate, SJW are going to far, racist is being overused, Obama was not our president rhetoric. But is that really worth having a president Trump and staff that:
- Objectively lies about many issues
- Don't care about objective press and are using obvious propaganda tactics to smother the truth
- Rather watches TV than reading Intel reports.
- Deny climate change, remove environmental protection laws so pollution (not just CO2 but water and land pollution too) will become a big issue
- Has a disdain for science
- Wants to sell and log national parks
- Unnecessarily ruins diplomatic relationships because he's a quickly angered, arrogant and rude.
- As billionaires really are not going to care about poor people (see Goldman Sachs appointees, relaxing financial oversight, decrease taxes for the 1%, Exxon Mobil CEO in cabinet, Education pick which only qualification is that she's filthy rich and donated many many millions)
- Has an unnatural liking for Russia and Putin in particular
- Is already warmongering Iran
I just don't see how that will make a country great again in any way You should understand that there is a reason why his approval ratings are so low. People don't really like him, it's just the reality of what happens when people hate both candidates. Hell, even half the Trump supporters here have plenty of bad things to say about him.
bad things about Trump
- petty as fuck
- ridiculously sensitive
- no political experience
- volatile temperament
He had a strong message, and an incredible charisma that people were able to rally behind. The best part is Clinton played right into his messaging with her own flaws. We can all agree that she had 0 charisma, and is about as establishment as it gets. Both are huge disadvantages vs Trump. The frustration surrounding the political class was palpable, and then the dems had the nerve to shove the most establishment candidate of all down everyone's throats against the guy who was claiming to put the elite in line.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt.
Trump has gotten literally endless shit for all his scandals. That we jump from scandal to scandal without digging deeply enough into each individual one is more of a problem of messaging than of giving enough attention. What doesn't help is that there was a lot of random noise generated. A man cheering at a rally is actually a Nazi salute. An old lady demonstrating a Nazi salute is proof that Trump is fascist. Endless unproven and summarily dropped accusations of sexual misconduct are put forward. Hell, even certain Clinton allies admitted that their earlier habits of crying wolf made it difficult to convey the dangers of Trump.
And get out of here with the "it's actually sercret sexism" trash. That's simply not why she lost. We just elected a black man and we have elected plenty of women to high public offices. While sexism still exists she lost because she sucks ass.
|
On February 04 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt. Trump has gotten literally endless shit for all his scandals. That we jump from scandal to scandal without digging deeply enough into each individual one is more of a problem of messaging than of giving enough attention. What doesn't help is that there was a lot of random noise generated. A man cheering at a rally is actually a Nazi salute. An old lady demonstrating a Nazi salute is proof that Trump is fascist. Endless unproven and summarily dropped accusations of sexual misconduct are put forward. Hell, even certain Clinton allies admitted that their earlier habits of crying wolf made it difficult to convey the dangers of Trump. And get out of here with the "it's actually sercret sexism" trash. That's simply not why she lost. We just elected a black man and we have elected plenty of women to high public offices. While sexism still exists she lost because she sucks ass.
I don't think your "and get out of here with..." is an acceptable way to discuss. Manner up.
If you can't acknoledge that a voters expect different things (and more) from a woman than a man, you must be living under a rock. Clinton "sucked ass" because people didn't trust her. That was the main thing. Her opponent lied 10 times a day, is she had a fact checking record about 5 times better as he did, but people distrusted her way more than him.
I do believe that one of the core reason to that is gender, and I am certain that, had she been a man, her difficulties would have been diminushed.
It's not to say that she was flawless, that she didn't fucked it up somewhere down the road. But it has been in my opinion, an enormous factor.
Now if it's for answwering me on that tone again, don't lose your time. We clearly agree on nothing, it's not a reason to be an asshole. I also think you say pretty ridiculous things a lot of the time.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 04 2017 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Brexit is the same. I know people who voted Brexit because they didn't think that Brussels worked well and didn't like the project. Fair enough. But that's not how the thing was sold. The thing was sold with the idea that there are too many brown people, and we don't like them too much, because they are not really as good as us, because they can't integrate and have "fundamentally different values", bla bla, all the usual bullshit. I was in London during the campaign, and that's basically all there were to it.
Do I think voting Brexit makes you a racist? No? Do I think Brexit was sold on a toxic and xenophobic message. Of course.
There were a lot of things for a lot of different people. An election with two options is a battle between two massive coalitions. Some people on each side are despicable, ridiculously petty, short-sighted, etc. Singling out one small group as if they represent the whole isn't very fair.
And I suppose one key difference is that Britain seems to support Brexit overall right now. It's the choice they made, whereas in Trump it's a candidate they are stuck with because they had two bad choices to begin with.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 04 2017 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt. Trump has gotten literally endless shit for all his scandals. That we jump from scandal to scandal without digging deeply enough into each individual one is more of a problem of messaging than of giving enough attention. What doesn't help is that there was a lot of random noise generated. A man cheering at a rally is actually a Nazi salute. An old lady demonstrating a Nazi salute is proof that Trump is fascist. Endless unproven and summarily dropped accusations of sexual misconduct are put forward. Hell, even certain Clinton allies admitted that their earlier habits of crying wolf made it difficult to convey the dangers of Trump. And get out of here with the "it's actually sercret sexism" trash. That's simply not why she lost. We just elected a black man and we have elected plenty of women to high public offices. While sexism still exists she lost because she sucks ass. I don't think your "and get out of here with..." is an acceptable way to discuss. Manner up.
Nope, your argument is unsupported trash, and it will be treated as such. You choose to inject sexism where sexism doesn't seem to be the major reason for her loss. Provide some proof if you want to make such an aggressive assertion.
I get that you don't think Trump should have won, and that historically you're willing to give Hillary more leeway than most people think is fair. Doesn't mean you can cook up endless bullshit towards that end. You say stupid stuff, expect to have that stupidity treated dismissively.
|
On February 04 2017 00:58 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 23:36 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 23:25 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 22:56 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 17:33 bardtown wrote:On February 03 2017 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 16:47 bardtown wrote:On February 03 2017 16:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets cut the crap. The right uses terms till they've lost all meaning as well. Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Regressive Left, Communist, SJW, Cuck, Libcuck, Fascist, etc. Let's not pretend only one side throws around words as insults until they're impotent. He mentioned specific terms. I responded regarding those terms. Stop being so pitifully defensive and acknowledge the problem rather than immediately crying 'but they do it too!' Have you entertained the idea that racism was much more widespread than you think and that the GOP operating its con on the basis of racial resentment, it is kind of normal to see those words flying a lot? I sincerely think that without the prism of racial tensions, american politics would make no sense at all. Now, I have seen the usual suspects here arguing that black people were natirally more prone to violent behaviour (cuz you know they are black) and then defending themselves from being racist. Racist is an overused word. But it is also way too quickly dimissed when used for very good reasons as "PC" attacks. I am a direct recipient of this behaviour because I am a vocal supporter of Brexit. You cannot imagine how many times I have been called a racist in the past 6 months or so, and I see exactly the same behaviour in the US. Have you ever entertained the idea that racism might be much less widespread than you think, and that people simply don't like illegal immigration, incompatible value systems and violent crime - regardless of their source? Many of these people voted Obama for 8 years. It's heartening to know both sides of the lake got it just as bad. It's like fuel to the fire--if you want to play this way, we'll turn you out at the ballot box, and read all the "Racism Won" columns the next day. Then we can settle down for a lovely game of "Who poisoned the debate first?" Also, "you cannot imagine the number of people that have called me a racist in the past 6 months" is the inception of "the Left does this." It's hard to give credence to "we're not all like that" arguments when it features so prominently in anti-strong southern border debate. Only xenophobes and racists would support that (Mostly or primary driving force behind it, if you prefer). Pardon me, but is it (1) a true statement on its face or (2) something a small minority of the left believes? Yes, I've been called both dumb for not accepting (1) and trying to slander a giant movement for (2) and it gets confusing after a while. A common characteristic of "ambiguous they" arguments is a focus on what the recipient has experienced without talking about who, specifically, is responsible. This is most easily done with the passive voice (I've been called...). The point is, sure, there are people who will say you're racist if you move into a cheap apartment in your city. But most people were talking about shit like "Mexicans are rapists" or the Central Park Five. Then people like you say because some people use them overbroadly, terms like "racist" just shouldn't be used. That's only a sensible response if actual racism ceased to exist in the world. It hasn't. I'm trying to lay some groundwork here. Would a self-respecting thread leftist say the primary motivation for supporting a strong southern border/border wall is irrational xenophobia and racism? Or, more often than not, is this just GOP members trumping up regional or minority Democrat voices because it's nowhere a typical Left judgment (maybe a defining one tbh)? Now you're a little famous for attempting generalizations with explanations of what Trump voters say and do. So moving beyond the whos and hows of neutered racism/sexism language, do you impute irrational fear/hatred/"phobia" to the viewpoint and is the former just as fair a generalization as you feel your latest "Trumpists" and bad faith speech was? Woah, I'm famous! Cool! I should have realized that post was why you've soured on me so suddenly. I guess I should start by saying I didn't mean to paint all of his supporters with a broad brush. I mentioned that Trump supporters often feel disingenuous in their arguments; I should have clarified I mostly see this outside of the thread. A couple of the more infrequent posters (RiK, zeo) sure seem like it. I mentioned in that post that I get that vibe from xDaunt sometimes, although it seems to depend on the day. Worth noting that while I have certsinly disagreed with you, I have never felt that you were being disingenuous in your argument. I can't speak with certainty about your motivations or those of others, but I will say that supporting a strong border, with or without a wall, is not an innately racist position. I have no reason to believe you're a racist. To the extent it's justified by racial slanders like "Mexico is sending them over to rape our women" then the motivation appears racist, especially considering the crime rate among illegal immigrants is lower than among citizens. When much of the discussion revolves around parading white victims of crimes committed by immigrants and talking about "keeping our country safe," it certainly starts to feel like race is playing a role.
It looked like, for whatever reason, you were doing Buzzfeed Trump Dossier routine instead of discussion, but maybe my faculties for seeing you are at the same level you use to perceive xDaunt in this post. But I appreciate hearing your honest opinion just like Biff's.
|
On February 04 2017 02:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt. Trump has gotten literally endless shit for all his scandals. That we jump from scandal to scandal without digging deeply enough into each individual one is more of a problem of messaging than of giving enough attention. What doesn't help is that there was a lot of random noise generated. A man cheering at a rally is actually a Nazi salute. An old lady demonstrating a Nazi salute is proof that Trump is fascist. Endless unproven and summarily dropped accusations of sexual misconduct are put forward. Hell, even certain Clinton allies admitted that their earlier habits of crying wolf made it difficult to convey the dangers of Trump. And get out of here with the "it's actually sercret sexism" trash. That's simply not why she lost. We just elected a black man and we have elected plenty of women to high public offices. While sexism still exists she lost because she sucks ass. I don't think your "and get out of here with..." is an acceptable way to discuss. Manner up. Nope, your argument is unsupported trash, and it will be treated as such. You choose to inject sexism where sexism doesn't seem to be the major reason for her loss. Provide some proof if you want to make such an aggressive assertion. I get that you don't think Trump should have won, and that historically you're willing to give Hillary more leeway than most people think is fair. Doesn't mean you can cook up endless bullshit towards that end. You say stupid stuff, expect to have that stupidity treated dismissively.
I am fine with you being dismissive, but don't tell me to walk out of here. My point is self evident to me and I can't recall the number of time I thought you posted unsupported, ridiculous bullshit; yet I try not to insult you and keep my manners. I ask you to do the same.
And believe it or not, but the idea that you think that Clinton run would have been just as hard had she been a man, or that Trump could have been elected behaving the same way and being a woman is facepalm worthy.
It's not to say the big story of this election is sexism. I don't think it is. But has double standart played a huge role? That's self evident to me.
|
On February 04 2017 02:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Brexit is the same. I know people who voted Brexit because they didn't think that Brussels worked well and didn't like the project. Fair enough. But that's not how the thing was sold. The thing was sold with the idea that there are too many brown people, and we don't like them too much, because they are not really as good as us, because they can't integrate and have "fundamentally different values", bla bla, all the usual bullshit. I was in London during the campaign, and that's basically all there were to it.
Do I think voting Brexit makes you a racist? No? Do I think Brexit was sold on a toxic and xenophobic message. Of course. There were a lot of things for a lot of different people. An election with two options is a battle between two massive coalitions. Some people on each side are despicable, ridiculously petty, short-sighted, etc. Singling out one small group as if they represent the whole isn't very fair. And I suppose one key difference is that Britain seems to support Brexit overall right now. It's the choice they made, whereas in Trump it's a candidate they are stuck with because they had two bad choices to begin with.
I agree in general; yet there is a dynamic that support both Brexit and Trump that is pretty toxic, and clearly feeds on xenophobia. I think that's all we say. Does that make all Brexit voters or even all Trump supporters toxic and racists. No. There are plenty of reasons, good or bad (can't think of a good one in the case of Trump but that's my perspective) to support a side.
Now, an election can illustrate some tendencies. The fact you win elections by making a nauseating, toxic and pretty racist campaign means that something really serious is happening, and that ideas that were once unacceptable are once again totally open for debate (we discussed in this thread torture a few times with a totally "open mind". I find that unbelievably disturbing. Not to mention the likes of xDaunt find that a really good idea. I used to think that you had to be afficted with a higher degree of psychopathy to support something like that and I think it was the general consensus not longer than two decades ago).
But again. The point is not to single out people. I also don't like it when I am being called "the left" and that stupid, broad generalizations about "the left" are made to attack me.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 04 2017 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 02:13 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
uh the clinton team bent over backwards for bernie. it is just rather difficult for the witch to change the minds of the hunters Of all the ways to characterize the opposition to Hillary, a witch hunt has to be one of the most disingenuous. She made very surface-level and symbolic concessions while giving every indication that she planned to change nothing substantial. People had every right to think she didn't earn their vote. I think on the opposite that it describes it very accurately. Considering the little scrutiny that has been given to Trump real scandals, I don't see any other way to talk about the way non-scandals such as the Clinton Foundation have been treated. Let's be clear, Clinton problem was not that her scandals were terrible. Trump University, the Trump Foundation and so on dwarf everything substantial one could have against Clinton. Her problem was really that people didn't like her, because she is a powerful, established, politician while beings way too hard from what people expect from a woman. Had she been an elderly dude, the immense distrust she inspires wouldn't have been there. Reverse the genders, and have Trump being a sleazy elderly female billionaire talking about grabing men by the cock, and you get a picture of why people talk about a witch hunt. Trump has gotten literally endless shit for all his scandals. That we jump from scandal to scandal without digging deeply enough into each individual one is more of a problem of messaging than of giving enough attention. What doesn't help is that there was a lot of random noise generated. A man cheering at a rally is actually a Nazi salute. An old lady demonstrating a Nazi salute is proof that Trump is fascist. Endless unproven and summarily dropped accusations of sexual misconduct are put forward. Hell, even certain Clinton allies admitted that their earlier habits of crying wolf made it difficult to convey the dangers of Trump. And get out of here with the "it's actually sercret sexism" trash. That's simply not why she lost. We just elected a black man and we have elected plenty of women to high public offices. While sexism still exists she lost because she sucks ass. I don't think your "and get out of here with..." is an acceptable way to discuss. Manner up. Nope, your argument is unsupported trash, and it will be treated as such. You choose to inject sexism where sexism doesn't seem to be the major reason for her loss. Provide some proof if you want to make such an aggressive assertion. I get that you don't think Trump should have won, and that historically you're willing to give Hillary more leeway than most people think is fair. Doesn't mean you can cook up endless bullshit towards that end. You say stupid stuff, expect to have that stupidity treated dismissively. I am fine with you being dismissive, but don't tell me to walk out of here. My point is self evident to me and I can't recall the number of time I thought you posted unsupported, ridiculous bullshit; yet I try not to insult you and keep my manners. I ask you to do the same. And believe it or not, but the idea that you think that Clinton run would have been just as hard had she been a man, or that Trump could have been elected behaving the same way and being a woman is facepalm worthy. It's not to say the big story of this election is sexism. I don't think it is. But has double standart played a huge role? That's self evident to me.
The expression "get out of here with that shit" means "you're being ridiculous" more so than "get out." Here.
It goes without saying that I disagree and I have discussed this with TM a fair bit, to the point that it probably annoyed a lot of people in the thread. But if you want to make the case, don't just pretend it goes without saying that she lost because sexism. I would say that we have a male clone of her - Tim Kaine - and I'm sure he too would have been pretty badly disliked if he ran the same kind of campaign that Hillary did. I certainly saw the two as equivalent.
Dismissive in response to unjustified aggressive assertions is fully justified. If you have further justification, go for it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 04 2017 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 02:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Brexit is the same. I know people who voted Brexit because they didn't think that Brussels worked well and didn't like the project. Fair enough. But that's not how the thing was sold. The thing was sold with the idea that there are too many brown people, and we don't like them too much, because they are not really as good as us, because they can't integrate and have "fundamentally different values", bla bla, all the usual bullshit. I was in London during the campaign, and that's basically all there were to it.
Do I think voting Brexit makes you a racist? No? Do I think Brexit was sold on a toxic and xenophobic message. Of course. There were a lot of things for a lot of different people. An election with two options is a battle between two massive coalitions. Some people on each side are despicable, ridiculously petty, short-sighted, etc. Singling out one small group as if they represent the whole isn't very fair. And I suppose one key difference is that Britain seems to support Brexit overall right now. It's the choice they made, whereas in Trump it's a candidate they are stuck with because they had two bad choices to begin with. I agree in general; yet there is a dynamic that support both Brexit and Trump that is pretty toxic, and clearly feeds on xenophobia. I think that's all we say. Does that make all Brexit voters or even all Trump supporters toxic and racists. No. There are plenty of reasons, good or bad (can't think of a good one in the case of Trump but that's my perspective) to support a side. Now, an election can illustrate some tendencies. The fact you win elections by making a nauseating, toxic and pretty racist campaign means that something really serious is happening, and that ideas that were once unacceptable are once again totally open for debate (we discussed in this thread torture a few times with a totally "open mind". I find that unbelievably disturbing. Not to mention the likes of xDaunt find that a really good idea. I used to think that you had to be afficted with a higher degree of psychopathy to support something like that and I think it was the general consensus not longer than two decades ago). But again. The point is not to single out people. I also don't like it when I am being called "the left" and that stupid, broad generalizations about "the left" are made to attack me.
I'm going to link an earlier post of mine because I think it says what I have to say on these issues in some greater depth than I have time to give right now. The TL;DR is that yes, I see why these developments are seen as highly troubling, but they didn't develop in a vacuum. A long-running failure of the current system to properly take care of many of the marginalized simply led to a situation where people see dangerous populists and other such folk as their only possibility forward. Anything else would just support a degrading status quo.
|
On February 03 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 15:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:[quote] I feel like I see this a lot in this thread, where people respond to posts by placing the poster into the camp of either the Left or the Right (the implication being, it seems to me, that the poster is part of a monolithic group, and thus just parroting ideas inherited from the masses). Here xDaunt submits Biff's post as "precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to" in his critique of the "Regressive Left." From where I'm standing, all that does is dismiss whatever legitimate point he may Biff trying (effectively or not) to make by drawing him into a group someone else came up with which he does not identify with. + Show Spoiler +not to imply that Biff is exempt from doing this same thing So when xDaunt says "It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point" - I suppose you're inviting people who DO realize that there's an underlying point and STILL don't like him to respond, but why would they when you've already caricatured them, regardless of their actual political affiliation, as part of the "Regressive Left." Even if they produced something more substantive, that doesn't do much to stop you from maintaining this same line. I find it funny how so many of you get caught up in semantics. I invited Biff to give me his critique of Milo (ie I didn't presume what his critique was), and he gave me the exact cookie-cutter response that I would have expected from just about anyone on the Left. So how is it unfair for me to lump him in with them or to otherwise point out the obvious (and this is from years of watching him post around here) that Biff is on the Left politically? And more to the point, why does the label matter when my real point is about the idea held by the group whom I'm labeling? And as to your point about my being dismissive of Biff's criticism of Milo, my response is: of course I was. Garbage in, garbage out, right?On February 03 2017 04:07 buhhy wrote:
You're not the only one to have noticed this. This xDaunt character is the most egregious of the bunch. Most of his responses implicitly lump the original poster into some nebulous 'Left' group. He then proceeds to insert some snide remark about the this 'Left' group as if they are all part of a group of clueless people that haven't caught on to some sort of grand message. It's almost as if he is committing the same crime he accuses the so-called 'Left' of doing - not trying to understand the other side and tarring them all with the same brush.
But rest assured, your post will go unnoticed. People will continue responding to his posts, and he continues to impose judgements on his own self-made categorisations, no real discussion occurs, and the cycle continues. And I'll say the same thing to you. Why are you so caught up in the semantics? My categorization of people is really besides the point. It's the ideas that matter. As for the bolded/underlined comment of yours above, there's a critical difference between my categorization of people and what the Left does: I'm generally not imparting any judgment upon the other side with my categorization (I will admit that "Regressive Left" is a loaded term). Saying that someone is part of "the Left" is a fairly neutral label in the way that calling someone a "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe" is not. You're such a hypocrite. You said he gave the same 'cookie cutter' response you'd expect from most of the left and then that it was garbage. Sure the label is neutral but then you slam the group. It's like me talking about how the Right are a bunch of assholes. The Right is just a label too, then I judged them, just as you do. You basically said the left just spews cookie-cutter garbage and then you tried to claim the moral high ground because you're deluded into thinking you don't categorize the opposition negatively. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president. So why do you think that the attacks did not work this time around? And for extra credit, what do you think my answer to that question is? A lot of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that conservatives have been poisoning the well on any "politically correct" labels so much that people no longer think of racism or sexism as the great societal evils they are. They just think of it as some nagging liberals whining about something or other. Notably, this makes it so that when people are faced with actual racism, they automatically assume it's not really racism. It's probably tongue-in-cheek, or just meant to protest against PC culture, or something. Thus you get a serious dispute about whether or not the alt-right is racist despite r/altright regularly going full anti-miscegenation (As an aside, I was going to link to some racist r/altright posts as proof but apparently that subreddit got banned). Another decent answer is that it did work in a sense – Donald Trump is the least popular winning candidate in history, after all. If both candidates are that unpopular, it seems reasonable to think both sides' mudslinging landed pretty well. I don't think most people heard much about DT's racism, and xenophobia is usually a bit too convoluted to make a very effective attack, but after the Access Hollywood tape I don't think anybody was about to argue Donald Trump didn't have a women problem. It just wasn't enough to stop his chances (I hesitate to even bring this up because I'm really tired of re-litigating this election, and if LL hears he'll come and say "electable" 20 more times). If I had to guess, I'm guessing you don't think Donald Trump is a racist, and the sexism stuff is overblown. As for "xenophobia," you probably think that's just a pejorative to dismiss legitimate fears about the effects of immigrants on the country. But hey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, feel free to share your reasons why Donald Trump's apparent racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not legitimate reasons to dislike him. First, let me just say that if I am inviting you to guess what I think on something, I'm clearly giving you license to do just that. So don't be shy. As for your answers on the merits, I find it curious that you'd blame conservatives' reception of the charges and their nagging about the use of the charges as opposed to the people actually wielding the charges. I don't think that I have seen one interview of a Trump a voter where the voter said something corroborating your explanation for why the charges didn't work against Trump. What I have seen, however, are many, many interviews of Trump voters who said that they were tired of the Left throwing around the charges so freely and simply didn't care about them anymore. It's a simple case of the boy who cried wolf too many times.
I mean there's blame to go around. For Tumblr activists complaining about the racism of gentrification, I do think the term is being over-applied and their arguments are usually silly. But I don't think they're tearing this country apart or anything.
In response to that type of race theory, though, conservatives have tried to respond with a blanket dismissal, something along the lines of "lefties think everything is racist and sexist, pay them no mind." That's been a line conservatives have been pushing for at least a decade now, and insomuch as that excuse is granted, it's a free pass to get off on racism or sexism charges without your case being considered on the merits. The result is that racist arguments have been getting more and more bold, to the point that people will argue the alt right isn't racist despite them openly citing a global Jew conspiracy as directly responsible for a lot of world problems.
So, do I blame the race theorists for trying to use race as a lens to look at a much broader set of issues (with, I will acknowledge, limited success)? Or the conservatives who used the race theorists as an excuse to dismiss pretty much ALL racism accusations, regardless of merit? I'm inclined towards the latter
|
On February 04 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 02:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Brexit is the same. I know people who voted Brexit because they didn't think that Brussels worked well and didn't like the project. Fair enough. But that's not how the thing was sold. The thing was sold with the idea that there are too many brown people, and we don't like them too much, because they are not really as good as us, because they can't integrate and have "fundamentally different values", bla bla, all the usual bullshit. I was in London during the campaign, and that's basically all there were to it.
Do I think voting Brexit makes you a racist? No? Do I think Brexit was sold on a toxic and xenophobic message. Of course. There were a lot of things for a lot of different people. An election with two options is a battle between two massive coalitions. Some people on each side are despicable, ridiculously petty, short-sighted, etc. Singling out one small group as if they represent the whole isn't very fair. And I suppose one key difference is that Britain seems to support Brexit overall right now. It's the choice they made, whereas in Trump it's a candidate they are stuck with because they had two bad choices to begin with. I agree in general; yet there is a dynamic that support both Brexit and Trump that is pretty toxic, and clearly feeds on xenophobia. I think that's all we say. Does that make all Brexit voters or even all Trump supporters toxic and racists. No. There are plenty of reasons, good or bad (can't think of a good one in the case of Trump but that's my perspective) to support a side. Now, an election can illustrate some tendencies. The fact you win elections by making a nauseating, toxic and pretty racist campaign means that something really serious is happening, and that ideas that were once unacceptable are once again totally open for debate (we discussed in this thread torture a few times with a totally "open mind". I find that unbelievably disturbing. Not to mention the likes of xDaunt find that a really good idea. I used to think that you had to be afficted with a higher degree of psychopathy to support something like that and I think it was the general consensus not longer than two decades ago). But again. The point is not to single out people. I also don't like it when I am being called "the left" and that stupid, broad generalizations about "the left" are made to attack me. I'm going to link an earlier post of mine because I think it says what I have to say on these issues in some greater depth than I have time to give right now. The TL;DR is that yes, I see why these developments are seen as highly troubling, but they didn't develop in a vacuum. A long-running failure of the current system to properly take care of many of the marginalized simply led to a situation where people see dangerous populists and other such folk as their only possibility forward. Anything else would just support a degrading status quo.
I agree the statu quo sucks but electing a President enhancing all what is actually wrong is not going forward : more pollution, inequalities, xenophobia, ignorance, that's what he's working for. Feel free to prove me wrong on any of those points.
|
This man has no idea what he's doing.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 04 2017 03:03 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 02:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Brexit is the same. I know people who voted Brexit because they didn't think that Brussels worked well and didn't like the project. Fair enough. But that's not how the thing was sold. The thing was sold with the idea that there are too many brown people, and we don't like them too much, because they are not really as good as us, because they can't integrate and have "fundamentally different values", bla bla, all the usual bullshit. I was in London during the campaign, and that's basically all there were to it.
Do I think voting Brexit makes you a racist? No? Do I think Brexit was sold on a toxic and xenophobic message. Of course. There were a lot of things for a lot of different people. An election with two options is a battle between two massive coalitions. Some people on each side are despicable, ridiculously petty, short-sighted, etc. Singling out one small group as if they represent the whole isn't very fair. And I suppose one key difference is that Britain seems to support Brexit overall right now. It's the choice they made, whereas in Trump it's a candidate they are stuck with because they had two bad choices to begin with. I agree in general; yet there is a dynamic that support both Brexit and Trump that is pretty toxic, and clearly feeds on xenophobia. I think that's all we say. Does that make all Brexit voters or even all Trump supporters toxic and racists. No. There are plenty of reasons, good or bad (can't think of a good one in the case of Trump but that's my perspective) to support a side. Now, an election can illustrate some tendencies. The fact you win elections by making a nauseating, toxic and pretty racist campaign means that something really serious is happening, and that ideas that were once unacceptable are once again totally open for debate (we discussed in this thread torture a few times with a totally "open mind". I find that unbelievably disturbing. Not to mention the likes of xDaunt find that a really good idea. I used to think that you had to be afficted with a higher degree of psychopathy to support something like that and I think it was the general consensus not longer than two decades ago). But again. The point is not to single out people. I also don't like it when I am being called "the left" and that stupid, broad generalizations about "the left" are made to attack me. I'm going to link an earlier post of mine because I think it says what I have to say on these issues in some greater depth than I have time to give right now. The TL;DR is that yes, I see why these developments are seen as highly troubling, but they didn't develop in a vacuum. A long-running failure of the current system to properly take care of many of the marginalized simply led to a situation where people see dangerous populists and other such folk as their only possibility forward. Anything else would just support a degrading status quo. I agree the statu quo sucks but electing a President enhancing all what is actually wrong is not going forward : more pollution, inequalities, xenophobia, ignorance, that's what he's working for. Feel free to prove me wrong on any of those points.
On those issues, I disagree strongly with him. A more unapologetic supporter like xDaunt would note that those are losing issues so it becomes a moot point. I myself simply think that Trump is a bad development for all of those issues.
On certain other issues, namely his protectionist/isolationist approach to FP (which includes immigration), I see it as more in line with how Americans actually perceive these issues than a globalist approach. That's what I see in populists and frankly we're just seeing the fruits of a long-running desire for nations to reassert their own nationalist interests in the aftermath of a troubling economic crisis.
Maybe his successors will be more sane.
|
On February 04 2017 03:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 03:03 nojok wrote:On February 04 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 02:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Brexit is the same. I know people who voted Brexit because they didn't think that Brussels worked well and didn't like the project. Fair enough. But that's not how the thing was sold. The thing was sold with the idea that there are too many brown people, and we don't like them too much, because they are not really as good as us, because they can't integrate and have "fundamentally different values", bla bla, all the usual bullshit. I was in London during the campaign, and that's basically all there were to it.
Do I think voting Brexit makes you a racist? No? Do I think Brexit was sold on a toxic and xenophobic message. Of course. There were a lot of things for a lot of different people. An election with two options is a battle between two massive coalitions. Some people on each side are despicable, ridiculously petty, short-sighted, etc. Singling out one small group as if they represent the whole isn't very fair. And I suppose one key difference is that Britain seems to support Brexit overall right now. It's the choice they made, whereas in Trump it's a candidate they are stuck with because they had two bad choices to begin with. I agree in general; yet there is a dynamic that support both Brexit and Trump that is pretty toxic, and clearly feeds on xenophobia. I think that's all we say. Does that make all Brexit voters or even all Trump supporters toxic and racists. No. There are plenty of reasons, good or bad (can't think of a good one in the case of Trump but that's my perspective) to support a side. Now, an election can illustrate some tendencies. The fact you win elections by making a nauseating, toxic and pretty racist campaign means that something really serious is happening, and that ideas that were once unacceptable are once again totally open for debate (we discussed in this thread torture a few times with a totally "open mind". I find that unbelievably disturbing. Not to mention the likes of xDaunt find that a really good idea. I used to think that you had to be afficted with a higher degree of psychopathy to support something like that and I think it was the general consensus not longer than two decades ago). But again. The point is not to single out people. I also don't like it when I am being called "the left" and that stupid, broad generalizations about "the left" are made to attack me. I'm going to link an earlier post of mine because I think it says what I have to say on these issues in some greater depth than I have time to give right now. The TL;DR is that yes, I see why these developments are seen as highly troubling, but they didn't develop in a vacuum. A long-running failure of the current system to properly take care of many of the marginalized simply led to a situation where people see dangerous populists and other such folk as their only possibility forward. Anything else would just support a degrading status quo. I agree the statu quo sucks but electing a President enhancing all what is actually wrong is not going forward : more pollution, inequalities, xenophobia, ignorance, that's what he's working for. Feel free to prove me wrong on any of those points. A more unapologetic supporter like xDaunt
Confirmation that LL is actually a Trump supporter? 
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 04 2017 03:16 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 03:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 03:03 nojok wrote:On February 04 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 04 2017 02:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 04 2017 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Brexit is the same. I know people who voted Brexit because they didn't think that Brussels worked well and didn't like the project. Fair enough. But that's not how the thing was sold. The thing was sold with the idea that there are too many brown people, and we don't like them too much, because they are not really as good as us, because they can't integrate and have "fundamentally different values", bla bla, all the usual bullshit. I was in London during the campaign, and that's basically all there were to it.
Do I think voting Brexit makes you a racist? No? Do I think Brexit was sold on a toxic and xenophobic message. Of course. There were a lot of things for a lot of different people. An election with two options is a battle between two massive coalitions. Some people on each side are despicable, ridiculously petty, short-sighted, etc. Singling out one small group as if they represent the whole isn't very fair. And I suppose one key difference is that Britain seems to support Brexit overall right now. It's the choice they made, whereas in Trump it's a candidate they are stuck with because they had two bad choices to begin with. I agree in general; yet there is a dynamic that support both Brexit and Trump that is pretty toxic, and clearly feeds on xenophobia. I think that's all we say. Does that make all Brexit voters or even all Trump supporters toxic and racists. No. There are plenty of reasons, good or bad (can't think of a good one in the case of Trump but that's my perspective) to support a side. Now, an election can illustrate some tendencies. The fact you win elections by making a nauseating, toxic and pretty racist campaign means that something really serious is happening, and that ideas that were once unacceptable are once again totally open for debate (we discussed in this thread torture a few times with a totally "open mind". I find that unbelievably disturbing. Not to mention the likes of xDaunt find that a really good idea. I used to think that you had to be afficted with a higher degree of psychopathy to support something like that and I think it was the general consensus not longer than two decades ago). But again. The point is not to single out people. I also don't like it when I am being called "the left" and that stupid, broad generalizations about "the left" are made to attack me. I'm going to link an earlier post of mine because I think it says what I have to say on these issues in some greater depth than I have time to give right now. The TL;DR is that yes, I see why these developments are seen as highly troubling, but they didn't develop in a vacuum. A long-running failure of the current system to properly take care of many of the marginalized simply led to a situation where people see dangerous populists and other such folk as their only possibility forward. Anything else would just support a degrading status quo. I agree the statu quo sucks but electing a President enhancing all what is actually wrong is not going forward : more pollution, inequalities, xenophobia, ignorance, that's what he's working for. Feel free to prove me wrong on any of those points. A more unapologetic supporter like xDaunt Confirmation that LL is actually a Trump supporter?
I do support certain goals he's highlighted and I don't like Clinton all that much. But I didn't vote for him for a reason.
For now, I'm mostly content to just weather the storm of his presidency and laugh as others suffer for it. Electable.
|
So shocking that the American businessman who can't get American loans after all his bankruptcy filings wants to let banks give out bad loans again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
