|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 28 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:28 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying? I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy. I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end. It's amazing what happens when you look at Trump's campaign with the slightest bit of charity! If all I did was look at Trump through the bullshit lens that the left has supplied us, then I'd probably be convinced that the world was about to end and need to be parked in a straight jacket.
This.
You cannot evaluate trump with the mindset the USA was on the right path. We needed to shake things up not follow the status quo. You know whats scary? Hillary the warmonger, russia this russia that, Libya destruction due to swaying from the petrol dollar, or how about the complacency with the destabilization of the middle east? She straight up mentioned that russian hackers would be met with military intervention, you know how insane that is? Its like leaving out a basket of cookies on a crowded street with a sign saying dont touch. Except its a private email server with classified information. The crazy bitch was looking for reasons to go to war.
Trump may not be experienced but he has a whole cabinet backing him up. Hes our leader now, a cheerleader. He wants to egg you on to greatness.
User was warned for this post
|
Not sure who you're responding to legal; it kinda looks like me since I'm the most recent post, but it doesn't really make sense as a response because it doesn't address my points so I'm unsure.
As such I'm not sure whether I want to dispute it or not, since if you were talking to someone else it'd not be that relevant.
|
On November 28 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:28 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying? I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy. I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end. It's amazing what happens when you look at Trump's campaign with the slightest bit of charity! If all I did was look at Trump through the bullshit lens that the left has supplied us, then I'd probably be convinced that the world was about to end and need to be parked in a straight jacket.
I did look at it with a lot of charity for a long time. And still have. Yes, there's some people on the left that are overstating the damage and risk and being crazy doomsayers.
But he's still not fit to be president and has multiple major flaws.
|
On November 28 2016 12:18 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:28 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying? I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy. I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end. It's amazing what happens when you look at Trump's campaign with the slightest bit of charity! If all I did was look at Trump through the bullshit lens that the left has supplied us, then I'd probably be convinced that the world was about to end and need to be parked in a straight jacket. This. You cannot evaluate trump with the mindset the USA was on the right path. We needed to shake things up not follow the status quo. You know whats scary? Hillary the warmonger, russia this russia that, Libya destruction due to swaying from the petrol dollar, or how about the complacency with the destabilization of the middle east? She straight up mentioned that russian hackers would be met with military intervention, you know how insane that is? Its like leaving out a basket of cookies on a crowded street with a sign saying dont touch. Except its a private email server with classified information. The crazy bitch was looking for reasons to go to war. Trump may not be experienced but he has a whole cabinet backing him up. Hes our leader now, a cheerleader. He wants to egg you on to greatness.
Really, crazy bitch?
Consider the equally valid and evidenced alternative that the US was on a decent path bar Republican obstructionism, Hillary was not a warmonger and believed her FP actions were well-reasoned, backed by credible advisors, and justified for the situations involved, and was one of the better ways they could formulate to help allies in the Middle East without an unwanted and unpopular major intervention, Russia was partly involved in the Wikileaks hacks, the email server was a mistake that she apologized for when it came to that and was a normal thing to do that escalated out of control because of Republican partisanship, and she's not some "crazy bitch" who wanted to go to war.
Maybe consider that everyone who wasn't blind already knew that radical Islamism was bad but didn't need to condemn the entire Muslim population to make a point that was already evident. Maybe immigration control has been handled well in a complex system of balances that need to be maintained. Maybe trade is a complex global issue, trade deals have intricacies with the economy, and that the value of goods were well-aligned in the current global economy.
Maybe consider that Trump maybe doesn't actually care about you, lies to you while telling you he's not lying to you, tells you he'll fix things that don't exist in ways that don't help, and you gobble it up, while also assuming that politics needed a shake-up.
That Trump won the election doesn't automatically validate his points, doesn't automatically mean that Obama was a failure, and doesn't justify his insanity. Maybe, just maybe, consider that "leftists" "democrats" "establishment folk" that don't accept Trump's ridiculousness, that can't "understand" or "comprehend" that the US was shit and needed to change, were maybe, just maybe, correct in their opinion of reality, and that your views are deluded.
The election result is the end result of a number of reasons, many of which have yet to been fully explored, many of which people like you have tossed under the rug. People like me who don't think there many of the problems in the US you suggest actually exist aren't ignorant, delusional, "crazy", "triggered", "warmongering" "bitches" for not subscribing to your theories and accepting your evidence. This talk is absolutely ridiculous.
|
On November 28 2016 12:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:54 Sermokala wrote:On November 28 2016 11:45 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:I do find that people on the left of the politcal spectrum have a far worse view of the world then people on the right. I find the people on the right actually want to be"here" and enjoy where they are far more then the people on the left. On November 28 2016 11:40 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. Which is why it makes little sense to admonish them for rejecting Romney almost as enthusiastically as Trump when you yourself have not spared anything to use for a dem candidate that would be far worse than Obama appeared to you in 2008, for which there's plenty of room. He was still infinitely more experienced and eloquent and respectful of your positions than a democrat version of Trump would be. You're just not expecting that to happen, just as they didn't. Romney and Kerry committed the same sins in US politics, they were both dreadfully boring. did you see the general mood of the two campaigns? The dems were the ones all hopeful and optimistic. It's the Right that has been super negative the last few years (probably a result of what party was in power as president). Dems think the US is fine but that we need to keep pushing to 'perfect' the union so to speak. The right thinks the country needs to be "made great again". I don't agree with you. The last thing I would say about the dems in the last election was "hopeful and optimistic". I don't remember anything positive said about Hillary in a vacum nor did I see anything optimistic about what was coming for the nation. A lot of "this is where our country is if Trump is a candidate that has support" and "Vote for Hillary or you'll get trump". While the trump campaign was a lot of talking about what they would do when (barely if) they get elected and in power in washington. do you realize the trump campaign was also very pessimistic and bleak about the world? I agree clinton campaign under-talked about what they'd do in washington and needed more projection of hope in their campaign, but there's limits to that, as people repeatedly ignored policy discussions; so their actual plans don't mean much if noone listens.
I disagree, Trump's campaign was painting specific problems that was keeping america from being great again. That means consistently that America was great and can be again. If that isn't selling hope I don't know what is. Policy discussions aren't ment for the campaign trail they're ment for before and after elections. You gotta sell your plans to people and not just define yourself by your opposition like how the hillary campaign ran things.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I remember seeing Clinton's test pilot ads right before the general election. Some of them went after Trump's character, some of them made a dichotomy between the kinds of policies she would support and the kinds he would support. The latter were pretty convincing and made a really good case that the average person could appreciate.
The Clinton campaign mostly ran with the former from everything I saw.
|
On November 28 2016 13:18 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 12:18 Noidberg wrote:On November 28 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:28 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying? I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy. I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end. It's amazing what happens when you look at Trump's campaign with the slightest bit of charity! If all I did was look at Trump through the bullshit lens that the left has supplied us, then I'd probably be convinced that the world was about to end and need to be parked in a straight jacket. This. You cannot evaluate trump with the mindset the USA was on the right path. We needed to shake things up not follow the status quo. You know whats scary? Hillary the warmonger, russia this russia that, Libya destruction due to swaying from the petrol dollar, or how about the complacency with the destabilization of the middle east? She straight up mentioned that russian hackers would be met with military intervention, you know how insane that is? Its like leaving out a basket of cookies on a crowded street with a sign saying dont touch. Except its a private email server with classified information. The crazy bitch was looking for reasons to go to war. Trump may not be experienced but he has a whole cabinet backing him up. Hes our leader now, a cheerleader. He wants to egg you on to greatness. Really, crazy bitch? Consider the equally valid and evidenced alternative that the US was on a decent path bar Republican obstructionism, Hillary was not a warmonger but who believed her FP actions were well-reasoned and justified for the situation and was one of the better ways they could formulate to help the Middle East without major intervention again, Russia was partly involved in the Wikileaks hacks, the email server was a mistake that she apologized for when it came to that and was a normal thing to do that escalated out of control because of Republican partisanship, and she's not some "crazy bitch" who wanted to go to war. Maybe consider that everyone already knew that radical Islamism was bad but didn't need to condemn the entire Muslim population to make a point. Maybe immigration control has been handled well in a complex system of balances that need to be maintained. Maybe trade is a complex global issue, trade deals have intricacies with the economy, and that the value of goods were well-aligned in the current global economy. Maybe consider that Trump maybe doesn't actually care about you, lies to you while telling you he's not lying to you, tells you he'll fix things that don't exist in ways that don't help, and you gobble it up. That Trump won the election doesn't automatically validate his points, doesn't automatically mean that Obama was a failure, and doesn't justify his insanity. Maybe, just maybe, consider that "leftists" "democrats" "establishment folk" that don't accept Trump's ridiculousness, that can't "understand" or "comprehend" that the US was shit and needed to change, were maybe, just maybe, correct in their opinion of reality, and that your views are deluded. The election result is the end of a number of reasons, many of which have yet to been fully explored, many of which people like you have tossed under the rug. People like me who don't think there was a problem in the US aren't ignorant, "crazy", "triggered", "warmongering" "bitches" for not subscribing to your theories and accepting your evidence. This talk is absolutely ridiculous.
The election if anything proved that people don't believe that a lot of your post was true. That it validates his points to some degree is something people have to accept or denounce republics and all of its forms.
Everyone agrees Immigration is shit but disagrees on the path to and what to reform it to. Expecting a group of people to self police first and disparaging them when they don't isn't an unreasonable position. Trade is a complex issue but a lot of the trade deals have been "screw over a small group of people to benefit masses more" and now those small groups of people have been stacking up. Free trade with Europe is cool and all but when you're trading with less developed nations then its not equal partners. We exported a ton of unskilled jobs in return for less in quantity but higher in quality skilled jobs.
I agree stuff>gold but explaining to people complex economic concepts isn't going to go well ever until they simplify it down to something like stuff>gold
|
Yes and that plays onto his strategy of feelings over facts. The facts didn't support a lot of his assertions that the US is shit but some people felt that way and he played on that. As Newt said during the GOP convention along the lines of "I will go with peoples feelings over facts every time".
|
On November 28 2016 11:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:07 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
These aren't mysteries to anyone who's given any sincere effort to understand why they are in the streets. But you and plenty of others to this day still say things like "we don't even know what they want" as if it's not a signal of their own ignorance and an indictment of media, but a slight to BLM's failed messaging. I mean, with any other political advocacy group or marketing group, if the general population didn't know what they wanted, that would be considered a failure in messaging. I would totally acknowledge that other grassroots movements generally suffer from a similar problem of being decentralized and disorganized, with unclear policy specifics (the Tea Party, for instance, was all over the map when they first launched; I once saw a video of some guy dressed up as Uncle Sam explaining how we need everything from a gold standard to mandatory 2 years military service). I would also totally acknowledge that BLM gets judged by an unfair standard, maybe because of racism, or maybe because both parties can easily gain political points by throwing BLM under the bus. But at a certain point, even if its a rigged game that's the game they got into playing, and if people really don't understand what they're about after all this time, they really ought to re-examine their messaging and consider making changes. I mean I've tended to dismiss extremists calling for cop killing and such as crazies and not representative of the movement, but to this day I don't actually know what their proposed solutions to police brutality are. It's possible that if I wanted to do a lot of research I could start to figure out who the bigger figures are in the movement, find out where their websites are and what their proposed policy changes might be. But once again, for a political advocacy group it's a failure of messaging if the average person has to spend a while doing research just to find out what specifically they want. It's was hard for me to believe this wasn't just trolling, then I realized that you probably didn't follow the thread that closely and you missed me addressing exactly what you just did after Legal did it and before you did it. Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want). So by "research" that you would have to do, it would be just "pay attention to the conversation you interject yourself into" and you would have already addressed your knowledge deficit. Instead you chose to just opine that it takes hard work to know this stuff, while ignoring that even you couldn't be so much as bothered to pay attention to the conversation on the topic at a place you visit for leisure where the information was provided on a platter with fancy web garnish. At a certain point people have to realize it's not the messengers that are the problem.
I'm inclined to say if you're going to take such a superior tone at least pay a little closer attention to what I said, but I guess maybe I was a little unclear so let's try again.
I saw your exchange with LL, which I thought was obvious since I quoted it. I even clicked your campaign zero link, so I guess I should clarify that before I saw that link I didn't know what BLM's solutions were to police brutality. I point this out not to say that their policy suggestions are bad - I probably support them - or to say I don't support BLM - I probably do.
But if I hired a marketing team to make people know and like my company, and after a year most people didn't know what my company did, but most people kind of disliked us, I'd call that a failure in marketing. BLM is a political advocacy group. Messaging is their job. If they do that job well, when they're done thr public should know who they are and what they stand for, and ideally they would shift public opinion in favor of their position.
Instead most people think they know who they are, but are frequently under the impression they're in favor of cop killing or that they don't think non-black lives matter or something. Even for average voters who follow politics a little, their specific policy suggestions are not common knowledge, and you have to seek out their website to find out what they want. To make matters worse their website is under the brand "campaign zero," which has virtually zero brand recognition and most people don't even know is associated with BLM. (I confused it for Global Zero at first and thought it was a nuclear non-proliferation website)
If you want to blame the voters for being ill-informed and not seeking out that website, go for it, but that's the system we're in and if an advocacy group can't figure out how to work in that system, they're not doing their job.
|
Somehow I doubt most people think Black Lives Matter is in favor of cop killing when opinion polls put 43% of Americans supporting the movement and 30% not having heard of it in back in May. If anyone can find credible sources that don't show a solid majority of individuals who have heard of BLM supporting it especially after more recent events, I'm interested.
Unless we're strictly talking about white people's opinion of BLM's rhetoric supporting violence I guess? But considering support is still rising amongst white youth, clearly their message is reaching some people. Just not the people who get their news from some places.
|
On November 28 2016 14:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:Somehow I doubt most people think Black Lives Matter is in favor of cop killing when opinion polls put 43% of Americans supporting the movement and 30% not having heard of it in back in May. If anyone can find credible sources that don't show a solid majority of individuals who have heard of BLM supporting it especially after more recent events, I'm interested.
Maybe I'm wrong and the polling indicates that most people are more supportive/informed about the movement than I thought. I admit most of my experience with what people think/know about the movement is anecdotal, but it seems like so much of the conversation focuses around whether "black lives matter" means that non-black lives don't, or whether black lives matter is endangering our police officers. Both of those seem like an indication that they're struggling to dispel basic misconceptions of their movement.
That's not to say that everyone, or even a majority, holds any given misconception about the movement, but collectively they do seem widespread. I'd also think that even if a small majority favors the movement they really ought to be able to make that much greater, considering how obviously terrible police brutality is and how many of the reforms, like body cams, seem perfectly common sense and I don't really see why they'd offend anyone.
|
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement.
|
On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement.
I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential.
|
On November 28 2016 11:54 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:45 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:I do find that people on the left of the politcal spectrum have a far worse view of the world then people on the right. I find the people on the right actually want to be"here" and enjoy where they are far more then the people on the left. On November 28 2016 11:40 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. Which is why it makes little sense to admonish them for rejecting Romney almost as enthusiastically as Trump when you yourself have not spared anything to use for a dem candidate that would be far worse than Obama appeared to you in 2008, for which there's plenty of room. He was still infinitely more experienced and eloquent and respectful of your positions than a democrat version of Trump would be. You're just not expecting that to happen, just as they didn't. Romney and Kerry committed the same sins in US politics, they were both dreadfully boring. did you see the general mood of the two campaigns? The dems were the ones all hopeful and optimistic. It's the Right that has been super negative the last few years (probably a result of what party was in power as president). Dems think the US is fine but that we need to keep pushing to 'perfect' the union so to speak. The right thinks the country needs to be "made great again". I don't agree with you. The last thing I would say about the dems in the last election was "hopeful and optimistic". I don't remember anything positive said about Hillary in a vacum nor did I see anything optimistic about what was coming for the nation. A lot of "this is where our country is if Trump is a candidate that has support" and "Vote for Hillary or you'll get trump". While the trump campaign was a lot of talking about what they would do when (barely if) they get elected and in power in washington.
You clearly did not pay enough attention. Every Trump speech was "our country is horrible, everything is a disaster, I'm your only hope." Literally the slogan of his campaign is "America isn't great."
|
On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential.
No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant.
If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging.
I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring.
The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock.
So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is.
|
Readig transcripts of events Trump attented (since he seems to be shy to answer in a press conference)...
I get the total impression that Donald J. Trump suffers from beginning dementia.
http://www.alz.org/what-is-dementia.asp
User was warned for this post
|
Why are people even still arguing with xDaunt? He literally said that all the news is false and you have to read between the lines. Which is to say that you need to interpret it the exact same as him or you're just wrong, unlike him, the Arbiter of Truth. It's an unwinnable battle that isn't worth fighting anymore.
|
On November 28 2016 15:40 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 11:54 Sermokala wrote:On November 28 2016 11:45 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:I do find that people on the left of the politcal spectrum have a far worse view of the world then people on the right. I find the people on the right actually want to be"here" and enjoy where they are far more then the people on the left. On November 28 2016 11:40 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. Which is why it makes little sense to admonish them for rejecting Romney almost as enthusiastically as Trump when you yourself have not spared anything to use for a dem candidate that would be far worse than Obama appeared to you in 2008, for which there's plenty of room. He was still infinitely more experienced and eloquent and respectful of your positions than a democrat version of Trump would be. You're just not expecting that to happen, just as they didn't. Romney and Kerry committed the same sins in US politics, they were both dreadfully boring. did you see the general mood of the two campaigns? The dems were the ones all hopeful and optimistic. It's the Right that has been super negative the last few years (probably a result of what party was in power as president). Dems think the US is fine but that we need to keep pushing to 'perfect' the union so to speak. The right thinks the country needs to be "made great again". I don't agree with you. The last thing I would say about the dems in the last election was "hopeful and optimistic". I don't remember anything positive said about Hillary in a vacum nor did I see anything optimistic about what was coming for the nation. A lot of "this is where our country is if Trump is a candidate that has support" and "Vote for Hillary or you'll get trump". While the trump campaign was a lot of talking about what they would do when (barely if) they get elected and in power in washington. You clearly did not pay enough attention. Every Trump speech was "our country is horrible, everything is a disaster, I'm your only hope." Literally the slogan of his campaign is "America isn't great."
No, his message was: our country has great ideals, we've deviated from them lately but we are correcting course.
|
On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is.
Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want.
Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun.
But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to.
But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh?
|
I thought blm was supporting black power, at least thats what i heard them chanting when they riot. So its like the kkk of black people. Also they wanna blame evrething on cops and white people. Thats my impression of blm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
