I am still not convinced by the way that he isn't a deep-cover democrat. I can't tell the difference. It's also interesting how his candidacy challenges the GOP and might change it. Interesting times...
I'm not one much for conspiracy theories, but at this point, I wouldn't be overly shocked if this one was true.
We have two demagogues running for President and both are arguably sociopaths but somehow Gary Johnson is considered "edgy." LOL. Oh no, don't vote for Gary, he might push for marijuana decriminalization and minor tax cuts... how scary! This electorate cracks me up. He's the Bud Light of libertarianism, but he's still got my vote over those two.
Anyway, if it has to be Trump or Hillary then I guess my poison is Trump. Because they're both equally evil to me, so I'm going with spite. I don't take kindly to the way SJWs have tried to hijack this election and threatened (and even enacted) violence upon those who dared defy them. They will no doubt riot and burn our cities when Trump is elected and, as usual, they will blame it on Trump since they are incapable of wrongdoing. But I would compare it to the Garland, Texas case: if someone threatens to kill us for drawing cartoons, I'd rather be with the cartoonists than the killers.
I'm so glad we finally moved on from cussing everyone of being a SJW...
Holy crap I was reading that article and saw North Korea endorsed Trump. How did I miss that one. How can anyone think this is a good candidate for president?
I wish I could say I was shocked, but so much crazy ***** has already gone down this election cycle, the only response I can really give is "Huh." The only thing that could genuinely surprise me at this point is Trump and Putin coming out as a gay couple.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't really believe that theory, but exactly like you I wouldn't be shocked at this point. It also makes the whole ugly mess of an election much more bearable for me... and I'm not even a United States citizen!
Interesting fact: The trend of calling anyone having percieved "PC" views a SJW has made it to europe as well. Here in Germany the term that is being thrown around is "Gutmensch" (german equivalent of "do-gooder") which I find even more inane. Now wanting to do good is bad as well just because it doesn't align to your political views? Give me a break.
Well, he seems to like Putin very much and we all know how much Putin loves taking half-nude pictures... I'm just saying, it's not of the table
That article also shows Johnson at 12% very close to the required 15% to jump on the debate stage.
would be a blessing if we got any of the other unknown candidates that are running for president on that debate stage. truth betold we have a ***** ton of them http://www.fec.gov/data/CandidateSummary.do
I never did figure out where the fec puts the pictures of those people who filled out the paperwork to be candidate.
Interesting fact: The trend of calling anyone having percieved "PC" views a SJW has made it to europe as well. Here in Germany the term that is being thrown around is "Gutmensch" (german equivalent of "do-gooder") which I find even more inane. Now wanting to do good is bad as well just because it doesn't align to your political views? Give me a break.
Well, here's the deal, there are a lot of people who will cry racism/sexism/xenophobia/bigotry in situations that weren't the case due to distorted views of reality and ridiculous political views. Any time spent on tumblr will tell you this rather quickly.
This does not change the fact that when someone accuses a person of being racist/sexist/bigoted, yes, maybe it could be because the other person is being stupid, OR it could actually be because the person was being racist/sexist/bigoted. But no one likes to think, "Hey, maybe I'M the problem," which is where this whole SJW thing is going. Do SJWs or "do gooders" or whatever other term you want to use exist? Yes, and they're kind of dumb, and I don't mind a sarcastic term to describe their obnoxious foolishness. But the key to an SJW is that they're people who call out racism/sexism/bigotry out of ignorance when none exists, and/or when they're being racist/sexist/bigoted themselves.
Meanwhile, calling out racism/sexism/bigotry when it actually exists is not being a social justice warrior. It's being a morally responsible human being.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't really believe that theory, but exactly like you I wouldn't be shocked at this point. It also makes the whole ugly mess of an election much more bearable for me... and I'm not even a United States citizen!
I'm the same (except the US citizen part). It's what I like to call a dangerous idea that almost makes sense. Something so bizarre and ridiculous, you can't help but wonder if it's true, because the reality is even harder to believe.
Meanwhile, calling out racism/sexism/bigotry when it actually exists is not being a social justice warrior. It's being a morally responsible human being.
The problem is, most people don't know the difference. They just use it as a catch-all term that they lob at people who disagree with them because they don't have the motivation/capacity/grounds to actually refute the other side's arguments. This is a favorite method of several Trump supporters I have brushed with. They use it as a means to duck around all the racist and sexist things Trump has said.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Interesting fact: The trend of calling anyone having percieved "PC" views a SJW has made it to europe as well. Here in Germany the term that is being thrown around is "Gutmensch" (german equivalent of "do-gooder") which I find even more inane. Now wanting to do good is bad as well just because it doesn't align to your political views? Give me a break.
Well, here's the deal, there are a lot of people who will cry racism/sexism/xenophobia/bigotry in situations that weren't the case due to distorted views of reality and ridiculous political views. Any time spent on tumblr will tell you this rather quickly.
This does not change the fact that when someone accuses a person of being racist/sexist/bigoted, yes, maybe it could be because the other person is being stupid, OR it could actually be because the person was being racist/sexist/bigoted. But no one likes to think, "Hey, maybe I'M the problem," which is where this whole SJW thing is going. Do SJWs or "do gooders" or whatever other term you want to use exist? Yes, and they're kind of dumb, and I don't mind a sarcastic term to describe their obnoxious foolishness. But the key to an SJW is that they're people who call out racism/sexism/bigotry out of ignorance when none exists, and/or when they're being racist/sexist/bigoted themselves.
Meanwhile, calling out racism/sexism/bigotry when it actually exists is not being a social justice warrior. It's being a morally responsible human being.
Of course I know about the proper use of these terms, it's just that nearly every time I have seen it being used here in Germany it wasn't used properly but as a way to discredit the others opinion without using any arguments yourself. And quite frankly, I have seen more people throwing SJW around in the same way in the US than I have seen people who actually fit the description. I'm not saying that they don't exist (I do know a few examples and they really make me angry as well), it's just that in my opinion it is used way too commonly as a simple derogatory term to shut down dissenting opinions.
That article also shows Johnson at 12% very close to the required 15% to jump on the debate stage.
Right now, I would take the presence of any third party candidate on the debate stage as a net negative for Hillary. There’s an appreciable amount of people polling for her based solely on the fact that she is not Trump. We all know that Trump’s constituency will not budge even if they found out that he’s an alien invader disguised as a man, so one more non-Trump candidate on the ballot divides the vote.
Down the line though, pre-Civil War politics shows that this is how changes to the major party system tend to happen. At the end of both the First Party system and the Third Party system (the only ones that changed during peacetime), the party on the right became so obsolete and discredited that it faded away and eventually got replaced by one further left of the original party on the left. At some point, not even dividing the vote on the left between two candidates poses any risk that the one on the right will win, and it’s at that point that the other left party just runs a candidate in the general.
If those on the right are waiting for this to shake out and the GOP to be revitalized somehow as issue-friendly but still right-leaning, history shows that won’t happen. A party to the left of the Democrat party is more likely to come in. Also, if people are expecting a greater number of states like Vermont to turn out and vote independent long before we see any party change, history shows that’s also not likely to happen either. The magnitude of the benefits from getting support from party bosses has always ensured those candidates come out with the official stamp of the major party on the left. In fact being on his second term in the senate together with his time in the house, Bernie Sanders is already the longest serving independent in congressional history. The issues themselves tend to change in a way that obsoletes the right on something they can’t pivot away from, then the left decides where the new lines are drawn.
We will see some major upheaval when Trump loses, and it will be really interesting to see the fallout in the election after this.
Interesting fact: The trend of calling anyone having percieved "PC" views a SJW has made it to europe as well. Here in Germany the term that is being thrown around is "Gutmensch" (german equivalent of "do-gooder") which I find even more inane. Now wanting to do good is bad as well just because it doesn't align to your political views? Give me a break.
Well, here's the deal, there are a lot of people who will cry racism/sexism/xenophobia/bigotry in situations that weren't the case due to distorted views of reality and ridiculous political views. Any time spent on tumblr will tell you this rather quickly.
This does not change the fact that when someone accuses a person of being racist/sexist/bigoted, yes, maybe it could be because the other person is being stupid, OR it could actually be because the person was being racist/sexist/bigoted. But no one likes to think, "Hey, maybe I'M the problem," which is where this whole SJW thing is going. Do SJWs or "do gooders" or whatever other term you want to use exist? Yes, and they're kind of dumb, and I don't mind a sarcastic term to describe their obnoxious foolishness. But the key to an SJW is that they're people who call out racism/sexism/bigotry out of ignorance when none exists, and/or when they're being racist/sexist/bigoted themselves.
Meanwhile, calling out racism/sexism/bigotry when it actually exists is not being a social justice warrior. It's being a morally responsible human being.
Corollary: Trump is quite willing to be racist/sexist/bigoted, thus showing the 'anti-SJW' folks that he's not an SJW, so they like him. (I think they call it virtue signalling?)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
So; I've been wondering if and how exactly this scenario would play out. Because, the GOP seems to be incapable of change and voters for the GOP seem to be incapable of caring about what the "leadership" wanted.
I think this is inaccurate.
The general interpretation of the 2012 election and the GOP leadership strategy afterwards is that said leadership surmised that they needed to broaden their message, and so increase their appeal to minorities such as the Latino population.
That's why Jeb Bush was the party favorite early on.
The way I see it, the problem is that the GOP made a serious mistake with the way they interpreted the conservative backlash against government. It wasn't just towards Democrat-controlled government; it was towards government in general.
That's why Jeb Bush was highly unappealing to the populists and non-die hard pary adherents. Bush is part of a political dynasty, and so represents the same old, same old.
Trump is most decidedly not the same old, same old.
And that's what makes him appealing to these populists who are supporting him.
I think it's a mistake to consider these people actually part of the GOP. They just got lumped along with the GOP because the GOP is the conservative side of U.S. politics and so will encompass this group (in much the same way the Democrats have in the last decade or so grown to encompass the genuinely liberal elements of society) out of necessity.
The GOP leadership is just stuck with Trump because they really, really, really don't like Hillary Clinton. To the point that they're willing to place themselves under severe self-delusion regarding Trump. That's why they can't just dump him at this point, since that means Clinton wins. They're willing to get a man that is clearly unelectable into office, simply because he has the Republican Party next to his name on the ballot box.
In all honesty, I don't think Trump's victory is the most interesting development of this election cycle. Rather, it's that Sanders has succeeded in really forcing his will on the Democratic Party.
It is genuinely startling to me just how much social politics have changed the U.S. in the last decade or so. And now Sanders essentially forced the Democratic Party to officially make this a part of its identity. This is huge, probably on par with the shift that occurred in the 50s-60s with the Civil Rights movements.
Trump and the populist movement is a direct response to the impact social politics had on the U.S.
At this point, I fully expect the divide between the conservative and liberal camps to grow even bigger. And If the Democratic candidate line-up in 2024 doesn' have genuine liberal tendencies, then I fully expect to see a similar populist uprising in the manner similar to Trump.
That article also shows Johnson at 12% very close to the required 15% to jump on the debate stage.
Down the line though, pre-Civil War politics shows that this is how changes to the major party system tend to happen. At the end of both the First Party system and the Third Party system (the only ones that changed during peacetime), the party on the right became so obsolete and discredited that it faded away and eventually got replaced by one further left of the original party on the left. At some point, not even dividing the vote on the left between two candidates poses any risk that the one on the right will win, and it’s at that point that the other left party just runs a candidate in the general.
So; I've been wondering if and how exactly this scenario would play out. Because, the GOP seems to be incapable of change and voters for the GOP seem to be incapable of caring about what the "leadership" wanted. That said, the right wing ideology is kind of sticky. And at the same time there's a "moderate" wing of the democratic party that's starting to really feel like there's a line between them and the liberal part of the party. But, with the racial lines the rightwing continues to draw their party is becoming irrelevant. It's easy to see how the democratic party could move rightward. It's tried so hard to own the middle, and the left really wants its own party; but if the right is just ideologically set; how can that possibly happen? We can't forget that there are still many states that are solidly red. Geographically, the nation is sorted politically for the most part.
So, while it seems like what our society needs is for the second party on the left to rise up and for the democratic party to become the right wing party; the reality is that we have this media machine that's kind freezing everything place; redrawing the lines every day. I don't know if the classical argument is applicable, even though to me it looks like the way the system wants the adjust; and if it can't make that adjustment, what happens? Dems forever while the rightwing party becomes more and more radical, more and more hateful until it pops?
Speculating here because it's fun, let's take a look at the differences between Hillary and Sanders, and between Trump and the traditional right.
Hillary strikes me as more hawkish than the usual Dem, and more pro trade. And if the DNC is any indication, she’s still counting on support from the special interest constituencies (immigration reform, abortion rights, BLM, LGBT, SJW).
Sanders is not as swept up by these special interest of the left, and more about majority, middle class interests. He tends to own the constituencies that are the most affected by declining conditions among the middle class, wage stagnation, asset inflation, student loan bubble, etc. To no surprise, these are the younger, educated, mostly White voters who stood to inherit the middle class vision.
Trump endorsed the standard Republican platform, with the exception of foreign policy with Russia. He is much less hawkish than other Republicans, more progressive on social issues, anti-trade, anti-immigration reform, anti-Constitution, anti-everything, pro-Trump. The political power of his constituency will not outlive this election cycle. Certainly the voters themselves will, and they won’t be able to forget how close they were, so there will be some anger and upheaval to who knows what result.
But it seems clear to me at least that the hawkish, pro-trade Republican voter base should slide into the Democratic party as rebranded under Hillary. And equally clear, the Democrats will lose a lot of White voters to the party that coalesces under Bernie, which trend will probably widen with time as the younger population comprises more and more of the electorate.
The anti-immigration voters should in theory eventually go left to Bernie, because of the demographics, and the isolationism. For the rest of the social issues, who knows who will ultimately own them. In my mind, most of the issues other than immigration are just pandering, anyway. I can see the religious voters going for Socialism before they find themselves in the same party as LGBT and non-Whites, so maybe Bernie’s party will inherit them also. R’s will probably argue that they inherited the socialists and not the other way around, so who knows.
It will probably take at least one more transformative figure in the national scene to pick up the pieces.
One thing I will say though, Bernie himself does not at all seem to be above challenging a hypothetical Hillary in 2020. In the interview with Bill Maher, the prospect of running again was brought up and 4 years was mentioned somewhat unconsciously as the timeline.
Rocky Suhayda, Chairman of the American Nazi Party, thinks Trump winning would be a good opportunity for White Nationalism, would surprise the Enemy, would help convince people Nazis aren't bigots or something. [link]
Lets be real, even if Trump loses, the American Right's shift towards this kind of bull***** is more than a little worrying.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
The main difference between the party 4 years ago and now is that the candidate is literally crazy and incompetent this time around. But, party platform hasn't budged in the way the autopsy said it needed to for the party to grow.
Is that a more fair explanation of what I meant?
Edit: I don't think that you can expect Trump to follow the platform; but that doesn't mean that he's not ultimately running on it.
If ordinary Republicans really cared about the platform, they would have submitted to Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, or maybe Cruz.
People didn't gravitate toward Trump because he was promising tax reductions and cuts in government spending. No, the base went for Trump because of trade deals and "build the wall". That's why all the movement conservatives and think-tank types are freaking out over Trump. That's why the 2012 autopsy blew up in the face of the establishment. The people at National Review and Heritage Foundation (among other institutions) are finally coming to grips that the voters they court really don't care as much about the platform as they do. The voters want a more European style of conservatism that is much more nationalist and economically liberal than what the think-tanks approve of. There's a reason why Trump refuses to touch SS and Medicare, for example. His supporters would instantaneously revolt if he laid a finger on those programs, despite those supporters being life-long Republicans.
Rocky Suhayda, Chairman of the American Nazi Party, thinks Trump winning would be a good opportunity for White Nationalism, would surprise the Enemy, would help convince people Nazis aren't bigots or something. [link]
Lets be real, even if Trump loses, the American Right's shift towards this kind of bull***** is more than a little worrying.
I just want to draw attention to this specific quote:
“It doesn’t have to be anti-, like the movement’s been for decades, so much as it has to be pro-white. It’s kinda hard to go and call us bigots, if we don’t go around and act like a bigot. That’s what the movement should contemplate. Alright,” he concluded.
It's that level of denial, that level of delusion, that is terrifying.
Because it is what we've seen in this thread, what we've seen in this forum, and what we've seen in the entirety of Trump's campaign: people who are obviously bigoted speaking out against people calling them bigots.
Please, all of you, read this. And then tell me, do you still believe that it's the people calling out racism and xenophobia and bigotry that are the problem? Do you still believe it's counterproductive to call people who are obviously bigots bigots? Or is it a moral responsibility to call people who stand for bigotry and prejudice out for who they really are, instead of just letting intolerance slide? Is it our duty as citizens who believe in the American values of life, liberty, and equality for all people to point out the horrors of injustice and prejudice instead of growing acclimated to them, and through our silence express our willingness to acquiesce to these things occurring right in front of us?
Is anyone really so blind as to not see what's at stake here?
If ordinary Republicans really cared about the platform, they would have submitted to Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, or maybe Cruz.
People didn't gravitate toward Trump because he was promising tax reductions and cuts in government spending. No, the base went for Trump because of trade deals and "build the wall". That's why all the movement conservatives and think-tank types are freaking out over Trump. That's why the 2012 autopsy blew up in the face of the establishment. The people at National Review and Heritage Foundation (among other institutions) are finally coming to grips that the voters they court really don't care as much about the platform as they do. The voters want a more European style of conservatism that is much more nationalist and economically liberal than what the think-tanks approve of. There's a reason why Trump refuses to touch SS and Medicare, for example. His supporters would instantaneously revolt if he laid a finger on those programs, despite those supporters being life-long Republicans.
Precisely. The whole point is that Trump isn't a conservative, and people are voting him anyway.
Trump isn't running on a conservative platform. He's running on an anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, anti-foreign platform. The Trump supporters will try to spin this as "nationalism," just as the Neo-Nazis will try to spin their own brand of horrific bull***** as "nationalism," but we know it's racism, bigotry, and xenophobia.
I've noticed an easy formulae for predicting what Trump will lie about next. Just check what people are criticizing him for. He was never more correct than when he said he still has the same temperment he did as a first grader. His media strategy is when someone calls him a <blank> can be summed us, "Nuh, uh, YOU'RE a <blank>."
He's on trial for racketeering? Goes after "crooked" Hillary.
His mental stability is questioned? Instantly calls Hilary unstable.
He's accused of shady financial ties to Russia? Accuses Obama of shady financial ties to Iran by inventing a "ransom" payment.
The list goes on. I hope the Ivanka thing doesn't come up in the press again. We could probably expect him to accuse Clinton of being hot for her own daughter.
Please, all of you, read this. And then tell me, do you still believe that it's the people calling out racism and xenophobia and bigotry that are the problem? Do you still believe it's counterproductive to call people who are obviously bigots bigots? Or is it a moral responsibility to call people who stand for bigotry and prejudice out for who they really are, instead of just letting intolerance slide? Is it our duty as citizens who believe in the American values of life, liberty, and equality for all people to point out the horrors of injustice and prejudice instead of growing acclimated to them, and through our silence express our willingness to acquiesce to these things occurring right in front of us?
I think telling someone that they are a bigot is the first step to making it impossible for you to convince them to not be a bigot. No one responds to such accusation with "Oh, crap, you're right. I'll stop."
Trump is probably the better choice you Americans can make. Sure, he's obnoxious, rude, and says a lot of strange things, but that's nothing compared to a corrupt stogie for wall street who most likely has brain damage, either from an accident where she hit her head or syphilis contracted from Billy.
That's funny. If you replace the "she" with "he," you have a perfect description of Trump.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Trump is probably the better choice you Americans can make. Sure, he's obnoxious, rude, and says a lot of strange things, but that's nothing compared to a corrupt stogie for wall street who most likely has brain damage, either from an accident where she hit her head or syphilis contracted from Billy.
The real problem is that he is both unstable and has no idea what is going on in the world. Last week he didn't even know that Russia had invaded Ukraine. Between the two Trump is far more likely to start a war or initiate nuclear winter because someone insulted his hair piece. Also can you really bring up anything about Bill's sexual history while trying to defend a man who raped at least one of his three wives, hit on his own daughter and has slept with who knows how many pageant contestants? Seems a bit hypocritical don't you think?
Rocky Suhayda, Chairman of the American Nazi Party, thinks Trump winning would be a good opportunity for White Nationalism, would surprise the Enemy, would help convince people Nazis aren't bigots or something. [link]
Lets be real, even if Trump loses, the American Right's shift towards this kind of bull***** is more than a little worrying.
I don't think the conservatives are actually getting more xenophobic, in that more xenophobic conservatives today than a year ago.
Trump is simply letting those elements reveal themselves to the general public.
That being said, I also believe that the Republican Party, and that the U.S. in general realy, never had a grip on just how many of their people had xenophobic ideals.
There always were a lot of xenophobes in the U.S., with varying degrees of strength in their belief. Some may be Nazis, others may be people who are showing an overreaction to news from Germany and such.
In any case, I still maintain that the true worrying element in this election should be the Trump supporters and not Trump himself. These people aren't going away. One can only hope that they go back to not voting.
Trump is probably the better choice you Americans can make. Sure, he's obnoxious, rude, and says a lot of strange things, but that's nothing compared to a corrupt stogie for wall street who most likely has brain damage, either from an accident where she hit her head or syphilis contracted from Billy.
The real problem is that he is both unstable and has no idea what is going on in the world. Last week he didn't even know that Russia had invaded Ukraine. Between the two Trump is far more likely to start a war or initiate nuclear winter because someone insulted his hair piece. Also can you really bring up anything about Bill's sexual history while trying to defend a man who raped at least one of his three wives, hit on his own daughter and has slept with who knows how many pageant contestants? Seems a bit hypocritical don't you think?
Hit on his own daughter? Oh, you must have seen the Daily Show.
Would you care to refute the more serious parts of the post? Or are you you just going to make unforunded assumptions about were someone might have heard a bit of information?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
[quote from="gumOnShoe »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/624050-donald-trumps-presidency?comment=4672"]Well, you're basically using my argument that I'm using to vote for clinton to vote for Trump. So I can't fault the high level logic going on there. But you should look closer at the candidates on both sides and seriously question the scruples of both. It does not look to me like you've done your homework on Trump, that you've read as in depth into him as you have into Clinton. Nothing you wrote about clinton was something that was new to me. I'm aware that two clinton associates went to jail during watergate and one of the people connected to the whole thing committed suicide (anything beyond that is speculation as there's no proof). So, when I acknowledge that Clinton is morally dubious, I mean it. But Trump is amoral. There is no moral code there at all. And a solid study of his past reveals this.
Let me put it this way. Our choice can be compared to having to chose between having an Orzhov Scion (Clinton) as your ruler, or a Rakdos Ringleader (Trump). Which would you prefer to be in charge of your nation? Neither is a very good option, but one is clearly better than the other.
I love this quote bringing it all back to MTG but I have to take issue with painting Trump as Rakdos. Trump is Probably more Gruul than Rakdos. He has an inherent distain for all forms of government structure, Will engage in battle purele for the love of it even when there is little to gain from it and Xenophobia is a hallmark of Gruul culture to boot as referenced by the flavor text from Gruul charm. " Not Gruul? Then die!" Hillary as orzhov I can see it except the whole religious part. Seems more Dimir to me. But The most important part of your comment holds true whoeer wins... we all lose.
That being said, I also believe that the Republican Party, and that the U.S. in general realy, never had a grip on just how many of their people had xenophobic ideals.
Southern Strategy says otherwise.
With that said, you're probably right. America has always had overt racists, they're just not so often encouraged to believe that their beliefs are correct and mainstream as they've been recently. White America has to speak out against the terrorists in their communities.
So yeah. The point stands that it is hypocritical to say anything about Bill's promiscuity while defending Trump.
As often happens, I've found a relevant internet petition. [link]
Every day, Liberals on twitter and various webpages are making fun of the next President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, simply because of some innocent remarks our great candidate made praising his lovely daughter Ivanka Trump.
What kind of country is it where a man can't tell the panelists of The View: "If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her."
Or be shamed for saying to Rolling Stone that "Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father ..."
Or face ridicule for telling Howard Stern that his daughter, Ivanka, has "the best body."
Or have Liberal Jokesters on Twitter make fun of a powerful, very secure, Republican candidate for President, simply because they want to imply that there is something extremely creepy about multiple photoshoots you took with your teenage daughter sitting on your lap.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
I think telling someone that they are a bigot is the first step to making it impossible for you to convince them to not be a bigot.
No, telling someone they're a bigot is the only way to go about convincing someone not to be a bigot. You have to admit that there's a problem before you go about solving it.
And if people want to be bigoted and refuse to accept their moral responsibility to not be ********s, then that's on them. Yes, it's probable that most American Neo-Nazis will not be swayed and will hold fast to their beliefs. However, that is not an excuse to fail to condemn the American Neo-Nazi movement, because the Neo-Nazi movement is unacceptable. Bigotry and intolerance are unacceptable in any society, and we must not fail to express our condemnation of it, because that is our responsibility to the social discourse of our country. Either we condemn bigotry and intolerance, or we, through our silence, consent to it.
And if people want to be bigoted and refuse to accept their moral responsibility to not be ********s, then that's on them. Yes, it's probable that most American Neo-Nazis will not be swayed and will hold fast to their beliefs. However, that is not an excuse to fail to condemn the American Neo-Nazi movement, because the Neo-Nazi movement is unacceptable. Bigotry and intolerance are unacceptable in any society, and we must not fail to express our condemnation of it, because that is our responsibility to the social discourse of our country. Either we condemn bigotry and intolerance, or we, through our silence, consent to it.
If bigotry is a disease, than the bigoted are the afflicted. You can condemn the bigotry all you want, and no cure will come of it. A violent purge creates martyrs. Now, if you and a bunch of people of all races challenge the local Neo-Nazis to some silly bread-baking competition, you might be able to get somewhere, ease some tensions, lower shields. I'm not worried about the Neo-Nazis, though, because they seem to be harmless quiet sit-at-home haters for the most part and they can be convicted when they break the law. Would be nice to lower those bigotry shields when it comes to those who live in paralytic fear of our police officers. Nope, people just sling mud at each other, and hide behind a political party barrier where they can find allies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't really believe that theory, but exactly like you I wouldn't be shocked at this point. It also makes the whole ugly mess of an election much more bearable for me... and I'm not even a United States citizen!
Interesting fact: The trend of calling anyone having percieved "PC" views a SJW has made it to europe as well. Here in Germany the term that is being thrown around is "Gutmensch" (german equivalent of "do-gooder") which I find even more inane. Now wanting to do good is bad as well just because it doesn't align to your political views? Give me a break.
Well, he seems to like Putin very much and we all know how much Putin loves taking half-nude pictures... I'm just saying, it's not of the table
would be a blessing if we got any of the other unknown candidates that are running for president on that debate stage. truth betold we have a ***** ton of them http://www.fec.gov/data/CandidateSummary.do
I never did figure out where the fec puts the pictures of those people who filled out the paperwork to be candidate.
The headline for CNN is "GOP Civil War." Meanwhile Trump claims the GOP has never been more united.
Well, here's the deal, there are a lot of people who will cry racism/sexism/xenophobia/bigotry in situations that weren't the case due to distorted views of reality and ridiculous political views. Any time spent on tumblr will tell you this rather quickly.
This does not change the fact that when someone accuses a person of being racist/sexist/bigoted, yes, maybe it could be because the other person is being stupid, OR it could actually be because the person was being racist/sexist/bigoted. But no one likes to think, "Hey, maybe I'M the problem," which is where this whole SJW thing is going. Do SJWs or "do gooders" or whatever other term you want to use exist? Yes, and they're kind of dumb, and I don't mind a sarcastic term to describe their obnoxious foolishness. But the key to an SJW is that they're people who call out racism/sexism/bigotry out of ignorance when none exists, and/or when they're being racist/sexist/bigoted themselves.
Meanwhile, calling out racism/sexism/bigotry when it actually exists is not being a social justice warrior. It's being a morally responsible human being.
I'm the same (except the US citizen part). It's what I like to call a dangerous idea that almost makes sense. Something so bizarre and ridiculous, you can't help but wonder if it's true, because the reality is even harder to believe.
The problem is, most people don't know the difference. They just use it as a catch-all term that they lob at people who disagree with them because they don't have the motivation/capacity/grounds to actually refute the other side's arguments. This is a favorite method of several Trump supporters I have brushed with. They use it as a means to duck around all the racist and sexist things Trump has said.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Of course I know about the proper use of these terms, it's just that nearly every time I have seen it being used here in Germany it wasn't used properly but as a way to discredit the others opinion without using any arguments yourself. And quite frankly, I have seen more people throwing SJW around in the same way in the US than I have seen people who actually fit the description. I'm not saying that they don't exist (I do know a few examples and they really make me angry as well), it's just that in my opinion it is used way too commonly as a simple derogatory term to shut down dissenting opinions.
Right now, I would take the presence of any third party candidate on the debate stage as a net negative for Hillary. There’s an appreciable amount of people polling for her based solely on the fact that she is not Trump. We all know that Trump’s constituency will not budge even if they found out that he’s an alien invader disguised as a man, so one more non-Trump candidate on the ballot divides the vote.
Down the line though, pre-Civil War politics shows that this is how changes to the major party system tend to happen. At the end of both the First Party system and the Third Party system (the only ones that changed during peacetime), the party on the right became so obsolete and discredited that it faded away and eventually got replaced by one further left of the original party on the left. At some point, not even dividing the vote on the left between two candidates poses any risk that the one on the right will win, and it’s at that point that the other left party just runs a candidate in the general.
If those on the right are waiting for this to shake out and the GOP to be revitalized somehow as issue-friendly but still right-leaning, history shows that won’t happen. A party to the left of the Democrat party is more likely to come in. Also, if people are expecting a greater number of states like Vermont to turn out and vote independent long before we see any party change, history shows that’s also not likely to happen either. The magnitude of the benefits from getting support from party bosses has always ensured those candidates come out with the official stamp of the major party on the left. In fact being on his second term in the senate together with his time in the house, Bernie Sanders is already the longest serving independent in congressional history. The issues themselves tend to change in a way that obsoletes the right on something they can’t pivot away from, then the left decides where the new lines are drawn.
We will see some major upheaval when Trump loses, and it will be really interesting to see the fallout in the election after this.
You see the party as exactly the same as it was in the previous election? Like, really?
GWU Bant Manifest - The Future Is Here. Or it will be at the end of turn. GWU
I think this is inaccurate.
The general interpretation of the 2012 election and the GOP leadership strategy afterwards is that said leadership surmised that they needed to broaden their message, and so increase their appeal to minorities such as the Latino population.
That's why Jeb Bush was the party favorite early on.
The way I see it, the problem is that the GOP made a serious mistake with the way they interpreted the conservative backlash against government. It wasn't just towards Democrat-controlled government; it was towards government in general.
That's why Jeb Bush was highly unappealing to the populists and non-die hard pary adherents. Bush is part of a political dynasty, and so represents the same old, same old.
Trump is most decidedly not the same old, same old.
And that's what makes him appealing to these populists who are supporting him.
I think it's a mistake to consider these people actually part of the GOP. They just got lumped along with the GOP because the GOP is the conservative side of U.S. politics and so will encompass this group (in much the same way the Democrats have in the last decade or so grown to encompass the genuinely liberal elements of society) out of necessity.
The GOP leadership is just stuck with Trump because they really, really, really don't like Hillary Clinton. To the point that they're willing to place themselves under severe self-delusion regarding Trump. That's why they can't just dump him at this point, since that means Clinton wins. They're willing to get a man that is clearly unelectable into office, simply because he has the Republican Party next to his name on the ballot box.
In all honesty, I don't think Trump's victory is the most interesting development of this election cycle. Rather, it's that Sanders has succeeded in really forcing his will on the Democratic Party.
It is genuinely startling to me just how much social politics have changed the U.S. in the last decade or so. And now Sanders essentially forced the Democratic Party to officially make this a part of its identity. This is huge, probably on par with the shift that occurred in the 50s-60s with the Civil Rights movements.
Trump and the populist movement is a direct response to the impact social politics had on the U.S.
At this point, I fully expect the divide between the conservative and liberal camps to grow even bigger. And If the Democratic candidate line-up in 2024 doesn' have genuine liberal tendencies, then I fully expect to see a similar populist uprising in the manner similar to Trump.
Speculating here because it's fun, let's take a look at the differences between Hillary and Sanders, and between Trump and the traditional right.
Hillary strikes me as more hawkish than the usual Dem, and more pro trade. And if the DNC is any indication, she’s still counting on support from the special interest constituencies (immigration reform, abortion rights, BLM, LGBT, SJW).
Sanders is not as swept up by these special interest of the left, and more about majority, middle class interests. He tends to own the constituencies that are the most affected by declining conditions among the middle class, wage stagnation, asset inflation, student loan bubble, etc. To no surprise, these are the younger, educated, mostly White voters who stood to inherit the middle class vision.
Trump endorsed the standard Republican platform, with the exception of foreign policy with Russia. He is much less hawkish than other Republicans, more progressive on social issues, anti-trade, anti-immigration reform, anti-Constitution, anti-everything, pro-Trump. The political power of his constituency will not outlive this election cycle. Certainly the voters themselves will, and they won’t be able to forget how close they were, so there will be some anger and upheaval to who knows what result.
But it seems clear to me at least that the hawkish, pro-trade Republican voter base should slide into the Democratic party as rebranded under Hillary. And equally clear, the Democrats will lose a lot of White voters to the party that coalesces under Bernie, which trend will probably widen with time as the younger population comprises more and more of the electorate.
The anti-immigration voters should in theory eventually go left to Bernie, because of the demographics, and the isolationism. For the rest of the social issues, who knows who will ultimately own them. In my mind, most of the issues other than immigration are just pandering, anyway. I can see the religious voters going for Socialism before they find themselves in the same party as LGBT and non-Whites, so maybe Bernie’s party will inherit them also. R’s will probably argue that they inherited the socialists and not the other way around, so who knows.
It will probably take at least one more transformative figure in the national scene to pick up the pieces.
One thing I will say though, Bernie himself does not at all seem to be above challenging a hypothetical Hillary in 2020. In the interview with Bill Maher, the prospect of running again was brought up and 4 years was mentioned somewhat unconsciously as the timeline.
Lets be real, even if Trump loses, the American Right's shift towards this kind of bull***** is more than a little worrying.
Art is life itself.
If ordinary Republicans really cared about the platform, they would have submitted to Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, or maybe Cruz.
People didn't gravitate toward Trump because he was promising tax reductions and cuts in government spending. No, the base went for Trump because of trade deals and "build the wall". That's why all the movement conservatives and think-tank types are freaking out over Trump. That's why the 2012 autopsy blew up in the face of the establishment. The people at National Review and Heritage Foundation (among other institutions) are finally coming to grips that the voters they court really don't care as much about the platform as they do. The voters want a more European style of conservatism that is much more nationalist and economically liberal than what the think-tanks approve of. There's a reason why Trump refuses to touch SS and Medicare, for example. His supporters would instantaneously revolt if he laid a finger on those programs, despite those supporters being life-long Republicans.
I just want to draw attention to this specific quote:
It's that level of denial, that level of delusion, that is terrifying.
Because it is what we've seen in this thread, what we've seen in this forum, and what we've seen in the entirety of Trump's campaign: people who are obviously bigoted speaking out against people calling them bigots.
Please, all of you, read this. And then tell me, do you still believe that it's the people calling out racism and xenophobia and bigotry that are the problem? Do you still believe it's counterproductive to call people who are obviously bigots bigots? Or is it a moral responsibility to call people who stand for bigotry and prejudice out for who they really are, instead of just letting intolerance slide? Is it our duty as citizens who believe in the American values of life, liberty, and equality for all people to point out the horrors of injustice and prejudice instead of growing acclimated to them, and through our silence express our willingness to acquiesce to these things occurring right in front of us?
Is anyone really so blind as to not see what's at stake here?
Precisely. The whole point is that Trump isn't a conservative, and people are voting him anyway.
Trump isn't running on a conservative platform. He's running on an anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, anti-foreign platform. The Trump supporters will try to spin this as "nationalism," just as the Neo-Nazis will try to spin their own brand of horrific bull***** as "nationalism," but we know it's racism, bigotry, and xenophobia.
And he won the Republican nomination.
He's on trial for racketeering? Goes after "crooked" Hillary.
His mental stability is questioned? Instantly calls Hilary unstable.
He's accused of shady financial ties to Russia? Accuses Obama of shady financial ties to Iran by inventing a "ransom" payment.
The list goes on. I hope the Ivanka thing doesn't come up in the press again. We could probably expect him to accuse Clinton of being hot for her own daughter.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I think telling someone that they are a bigot is the first step to making it impossible for you to convince them to not be a bigot. No one responds to such accusation with "Oh, crap, you're right. I'll stop."
That's funny. If you replace the "she" with "he," you have a perfect description of Trump.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
I don't think the conservatives are actually getting more xenophobic, in that more xenophobic conservatives today than a year ago.
Trump is simply letting those elements reveal themselves to the general public.
That being said, I also believe that the Republican Party, and that the U.S. in general realy, never had a grip on just how many of their people had xenophobic ideals.
There always were a lot of xenophobes in the U.S., with varying degrees of strength in their belief. Some may be Nazis, others may be people who are showing an overreaction to news from Germany and such.
In any case, I still maintain that the true worrying element in this election should be the Trump supporters and not Trump himself. These people aren't going away. One can only hope that they go back to not voting.
Would you care to refute the more serious parts of the post? Or are you you just going to make unforunded assumptions about were someone might have heard a bit of information?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
So yeah. The point stands that it is hypocritical to say anything about Bill's promiscuity while defending Trump.
I love this quote bringing it all back to MTG but I have to take issue with painting Trump as Rakdos. Trump is Probably more Gruul than Rakdos. He has an inherent distain for all forms of government structure, Will engage in battle purele for the love of it even when there is little to gain from it and Xenophobia is a hallmark of Gruul culture to boot as referenced by the flavor text from Gruul charm. " Not Gruul? Then die!" Hillary as orzhov I can see it except the whole religious part. Seems more Dimir to me. But The most important part of your comment holds true whoeer wins... we all lose.
With that said, you're probably right. America has always had overt racists, they're just not so often encouraged to believe that their beliefs are correct and mainstream as they've been recently. White America has to speak out against the terrorists in their communities.
As often happens, I've found a relevant internet petition. [link]
Art is life itself.
And if people want to be bigoted and refuse to accept their moral responsibility to not be ********s, then that's on them. Yes, it's probable that most American Neo-Nazis will not be swayed and will hold fast to their beliefs. However, that is not an excuse to fail to condemn the American Neo-Nazi movement, because the Neo-Nazi movement is unacceptable. Bigotry and intolerance are unacceptable in any society, and we must not fail to express our condemnation of it, because that is our responsibility to the social discourse of our country. Either we condemn bigotry and intolerance, or we, through our silence, consent to it.
If bigotry is a disease, than the bigoted are the afflicted. You can condemn the bigotry all you want, and no cure will come of it. A violent purge creates martyrs. Now, if you and a bunch of people of all races challenge the local Neo-Nazis to some silly bread-baking competition, you might be able to get somewhere, ease some tensions, lower shields. I'm not worried about the Neo-Nazis, though, because they seem to be harmless quiet sit-at-home haters for the most part and they can be convicted when they break the law. Would be nice to lower those bigotry shields when it comes to those who live in paralytic fear of our police officers. Nope, people just sling mud at each other, and hide behind a political party barrier where they can find allies.