|
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. |
Can someone explain why the news media keeps going after Weinstien, Spacey, Lauer, Franken etc when they should be focusing on bringing trump down? Yes these people made mistakes but their money and influence could be beneficially used to provide change for gun control and climate change regulations that literally affect billions of peoples lives. Demonizing your supporters seems counterproductive but I guess the media deems it necessary?
|
The media feeds off of ratings. This is what the ratings are. Until Mueller convicts Manafort or Flynn, then the world will continue waiting for the next new story.
|
On November 30 2017 02:40 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote:
Can someone explain why the news media keeps going after Weinstien, Spacey, Lauer, Franken etc when they should be focusing on bringing trump down? Yes these people made mistakes but their money and influence could be beneficially used to provide change for gun control and climate change regulations that literally affect billions of peoples lives. Demonizing your supporters seems counterproductive but I guess the media deems it necessary?
Because trumps supporters really give no shits about what he does?
How are you bringing him down on the media? Say that he is a sexist idiot who is unfit? His supporters don't see it and won't ever see it from the media saying so over and over.
Going after the others is house cleaning, if you want to be the people with the moral high ground you actually have to be on the high ground
|
United States42004 Posts
On November 30 2017 02:40 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote:
Can someone explain why the news media keeps going after Weinstien, Spacey, Lauer, Franken etc when they should be focusing on bringing trump down? Yes these people made mistakes but their money and influence could be beneficially used to provide change for gun control and climate change regulations that literally affect billions of peoples lives. Demonizing your supporters seems counterproductive but I guess the media deems it necessary?
Weinstein and I aren't on the same team.
I guess if you want to make a really big picture argument about the impending climate change apocalypse and say we need to treat Weinstein like Churchill treated Stalin then maybe I could see that. But let's be clear, even if we let sexual abusers join us on team "the world doesn't end due to catastrophic ecological collapse", we're still gunning for them once that's done.
|
On November 30 2017 02:40 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote:
Can someone explain why the news media keeps going after Weinstien, Spacey, Lauer, Franken etc when they should be focusing on bringing trump down? Yes these people made mistakes but their money and influence could be beneficially used to provide change for gun control and climate change regulations that literally affect billions of peoples lives. Demonizing your supporters seems counterproductive but I guess the media deems it necessary?
the news media goes after trump a LOT, why not go after those other people as well?
it sounds like you're saying the media doesn't cover trump enough;
they also don't aim to bring anybody down, they aim to make money, by selling coverage of topics that people will buy, like scandals.
|
On November 30 2017 02:40 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote:
Can someone explain why the news media keeps going after Weinstien, Spacey, Lauer, Franken etc when they should be focusing on bringing trump down? Yes these people made mistakes but their money and influence could be beneficially used to provide change for gun control and climate change regulations that literally affect billions of peoples lives. Demonizing your supporters seems counterproductive but I guess the media deems it necessary?
Creating existing precedent by cleaning house with big name media figures is extremely productive, even when considering Trump's stuff. The more people who lose their jobs and are publicly shamed for their shitty behavior, the worse Trump looks. And more importantly, this kind of stuff not being tolerated is just extremely beneficial for the country.
In many ways, we are fortunate Hollywood is such a shit show. People always say hollywood is a wing of the democratic party, and democrats do not try nearly as hard to defend sexual predators as republicans nowadays. Bill was a long time ago and there's no way he'd survive the current political climate. But point being, democrats "going after their own" adds a lot of credibility/force behind the idea that sexual predation is a very negative thing. High profile people being taken down who were previously considered untouchable is an extremely big break against sexual predation.
|
On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:03 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 22:43 zlefin wrote:that's a pretty weak provocation, we have much better trolls in the thread  the opposition method of dealing with it is imperfect, but passable. and at any rate, compared to the ridiculousness the republicans are doing, the dems come out looking like angels. the right went super crazy, and that's all on them. it's also objectively true that a lot of trump votes are idiotic. and poor discussion quality is more a result of it being the internet than anything else. why does the world need a leader at all? I don't see any reason why the world needs a leader. part of the US is trying to up its game, but it's the republicans who're blocking it; only so much to be done when one side insists on dragging you down. The Russians are pikers compared to “the opposition’s way of dealing with it.” I can really think of no more appropriate successor to Obama than Trump. really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. Not best possible outcome. My primary vote was for the person I thought was the best possible outcome. Trump wasn’t even in my top half of acceptable candidates from the 17 (?). Trump was more of the deserved successor with all the parallels and complements. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance?
I consider it possible to support and oppose political figures based on their policy priorities and policy compromises. Trump will continue to be more of an oppose for me than support, but there are these dunderhead resisters out there that call it impossible.
|
On November 30 2017 02:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:03 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 22:43 zlefin wrote:that's a pretty weak provocation, we have much better trolls in the thread the opposition method of dealing with it is imperfect, but passable. and at any rate, compared to the ridiculousness the republicans are doing, the dems come out looking like angels. the right went super crazy, and that's all on them. it's also objectively true that a lot of trump votes are idiotic. and poor discussion quality is more a result of it being the internet than anything else. why does the world need a leader at all? I don't see any reason why the world needs a leader. part of the US is trying to up its game, but it's the republicans who're blocking it; only so much to be done when one side insists on dragging you down. The Russians are pikers compared to “the opposition’s way of dealing with it.” I can really think of no more appropriate successor to Obama than Trump. really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. Not best possible outcome. My primary vote was for the person I thought was the best possible outcome. Trump wasn’t even in my top half of acceptable candidates from the 17 (?). Trump was more of the deserved successor with all the parallels and complements. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance? It's like trying to pray the gay away. If they never admit to it, then it can't be real. Those who support trump but are ashamed or embarrassed or whatever the reason, to just admit it and move on, have to distort reality so that the fuck-up they elected makes sense and they can shift blame to something else. Getting dangleberry to admit this, is a futile effort. You've a better chance of xD saying he's a neo-nazi sympathizer.
The distortion of reality is almost entirely in your court. How else to describe the motif of the righteous progressive surrounded by a sea of white supremacists and neonazis?
|
On November 30 2017 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 02:40 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote:
Can someone explain why the news media keeps going after Weinstien, Spacey, Lauer, Franken etc when they should be focusing on bringing trump down? Yes these people made mistakes but their money and influence could be beneficially used to provide change for gun control and climate change regulations that literally affect billions of peoples lives. Demonizing your supporters seems counterproductive but I guess the media deems it necessary? Creating existing precedent by cleaning house with big name media figures is extremely productive, even when considering Trump's stuff. The more people who lose their jobs and are publicly shamed for their shitty behavior, the worse Trump looks. And more importantly, this kind of stuff not being tolerated is just extremely beneficial for the country. In many ways, we are fortunate Hollywood is such a shit show. People always say hollywood is a wing of the democratic party, and democrats do not try nearly as hard to defend sexual predators as republicans nowadays. Bill was a long time ago and there's no way he'd survive the current political climate. But point being, democrats "going after their own" adds a lot of credibility/force behind the idea that sexual predation is a very negative thing. High profile people being taken down who were previously considered untouchable is an extremely big break against sexual predation.
I see your point, but for the time being it makes Trump look the good guy by tweeting "see how bad these people are!" right before the midterm elections. It just doesnt seem to be the opportune moment to open up this can of worms. If they waited until after the midterms to report on these allegations, the blowback would be less substantial me thinks, at least just focus on Roy Moore, but im no expert.
|
On November 30 2017 02:35 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:25 IyMoon wrote:On November 30 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:17 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them.
I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism). Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. Nationalism is anathema to helping anyone in the long term. You have it backwards. Nationalism is the solution to helping everyone long term. If you truly believe that your liberal ideals are superior, then you should actively promote and support those ideals, with the goal of supplanting all "lesser" competitors. pretty sure mass Nationalism has led to some really really shitty things in history The problem with y'all on the Left is that you have lost sight of nationalism's better points because you have been brainwashed into falsely equating nationalism with Nazism. Ditto about socalism
SoCalism is a blight upon my state. NorCal isn’t much better, but the political culture around LA/Hollywood is just awful.
|
On November 30 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 02:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:03 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 22:43 zlefin wrote:that's a pretty weak provocation, we have much better trolls in the thread the opposition method of dealing with it is imperfect, but passable. and at any rate, compared to the ridiculousness the republicans are doing, the dems come out looking like angels. the right went super crazy, and that's all on them. it's also objectively true that a lot of trump votes are idiotic. and poor discussion quality is more a result of it being the internet than anything else. why does the world need a leader at all? I don't see any reason why the world needs a leader. part of the US is trying to up its game, but it's the republicans who're blocking it; only so much to be done when one side insists on dragging you down. The Russians are pikers compared to “the opposition’s way of dealing with it.” I can really think of no more appropriate successor to Obama than Trump. really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. Not best possible outcome. My primary vote was for the person I thought was the best possible outcome. Trump wasn’t even in my top half of acceptable candidates from the 17 (?). Trump was more of the deserved successor with all the parallels and complements. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance? It's like trying to pray the gay away. If they never admit to it, then it can't be real. Those who support trump but are ashamed or embarrassed or whatever the reason, to just admit it and move on, have to distort reality so that the fuck-up they elected makes sense and they can shift blame to something else. Getting dangleberry to admit this, is a futile effort. You've a better chance of xD saying he's a neo-nazi sympathizer. The distortion of reality is almost entirely in your court. How else to describe the motif of the righteous progressive surrounded by a sea of white supremacists and neonazis?
In that motif Dangles, there is no right view. Without context, who knows why the progressive is surrounded? Or to say that it isn't reversed?
But something about quacking like ducks?
|
On November 30 2017 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:03 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Russians are pikers compared to “the opposition’s way of dealing with it.” I can really think of no more appropriate successor to Obama than Trump. really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism). Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here. Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong. Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency. "narrower ideological identification" lolz.
|
On November 30 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:03 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 22:43 zlefin wrote:that's a pretty weak provocation, we have much better trolls in the thread the opposition method of dealing with it is imperfect, but passable. and at any rate, compared to the ridiculousness the republicans are doing, the dems come out looking like angels. the right went super crazy, and that's all on them. it's also objectively true that a lot of trump votes are idiotic. and poor discussion quality is more a result of it being the internet than anything else. why does the world need a leader at all? I don't see any reason why the world needs a leader. part of the US is trying to up its game, but it's the republicans who're blocking it; only so much to be done when one side insists on dragging you down. The Russians are pikers compared to “the opposition’s way of dealing with it.” I can really think of no more appropriate successor to Obama than Trump. really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. Not best possible outcome. My primary vote was for the person I thought was the best possible outcome. Trump wasn’t even in my top half of acceptable candidates from the 17 (?). Trump was more of the deserved successor with all the parallels and complements. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance? I consider it possible to support and oppose political figures based on their policy priorities and policy compromises. Trump will continue to be more of an oppose for me than support, but there are these dunderhead resisters out there that call it impossible.
The whole thing about a perfect response to Obama amounts to a full throated endorsement though. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
|
|
|
On November 30 2017 03:08 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:03 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 22:43 zlefin wrote:that's a pretty weak provocation, we have much better trolls in the thread the opposition method of dealing with it is imperfect, but passable. and at any rate, compared to the ridiculousness the republicans are doing, the dems come out looking like angels. the right went super crazy, and that's all on them. it's also objectively true that a lot of trump votes are idiotic. and poor discussion quality is more a result of it being the internet than anything else. why does the world need a leader at all? I don't see any reason why the world needs a leader. part of the US is trying to up its game, but it's the republicans who're blocking it; only so much to be done when one side insists on dragging you down. The Russians are pikers compared to “the opposition’s way of dealing with it.” I can really think of no more appropriate successor to Obama than Trump. really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. Not best possible outcome. My primary vote was for the person I thought was the best possible outcome. Trump wasn’t even in my top half of acceptable candidates from the 17 (?). Trump was more of the deserved successor with all the parallels and complements. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance? I consider it possible to support and oppose political figures based on their policy priorities and policy compromises. Trump will continue to be more of an oppose for me than support, but there are these dunderhead resisters out there that call it impossible. The whole thing about a perfect response to Obama amounts to a full throated endorsement though. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Not perfect (at least in this exchange), just acceptable and "deserved" based on parallels.
I'm just curious which Democrats (if any) are less bad than Trump in someone like Danglars eyes. I'm also curious if there is anyone outside of the Republican party (based on current/past positions) that they could vote for if it was a choice between them and Trump?
|
On November 30 2017 02:40 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote:
Can someone explain why the news media keeps going after Weinstien, Spacey, Lauer, Franken etc when they should be focusing on bringing trump down? Yes these people made mistakes but their money and influence could be beneficially used to provide change for gun control and climate change regulations that literally affect billions of peoples lives. Demonizing your supporters seems counterproductive but I guess the media deems it necessary?
It shores up the “War on Women” narrative (Dem Party is better for women), allows them to attack Moore without hypocrisy, and shows rapists and molestors aren’t tolerated despite the sanctity of their political stances and donations.
|
So.. Because hollywood is a cesspool. Something everyone knew, its ok to vote for a guy that wasn't allowed into malls because he stalked teenagers? A guy that was so obvious at it the police knew... Everyone knew?
So very christian of you... Well actually, it is very christian when thinking about it a bit longer.
|
On November 30 2017 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:
[quote]
really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism). Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here. Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong. Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency. "narrower ideological identification" lolz.
Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.”
|
On November 30 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them.
I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism). Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here. Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong. Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency. "narrower ideological identification" lolz. Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.”
the side that admitted there were real problems was the dems; it's the reps who laughed them away.
|
Your president just embraced the child stalker and his party isn't dropping him (he still runs as R) but the other side is laughing it away? Are you actually serious right now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
