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.
Yes, you nailed it. All of the victories we've made in this country with regards to equal rights for all have been as a result of people NOT confronting and condemning bigotry.
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...
Just imagine the horror that ensues if Donald thinks this is a nice cop out after he loses. If he would publicly state that he actually didn't want to win because he wanted HRC to win. Imagine the democrats denying this is true.. The conspiracy theory outburst would make your head spin. Many people would actually believe Donald. We know he makes up things on the spot when he feels like it on that very moment. What if he feels that is a nice fun joke to make at that very moment?
Great, now you have changed my fun little but not at all serious conspiracy theory into a very possible future nightmare.
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.
The comparison to European Social Democracy is interesting. It sort of makes sense in that light that the Trump campaign thought themselves capable of wooing Bernie supporters. Although I think that the education level of this demographic would lean them toward a legitimate, qualified (read non-Trump) candidate, I also see a lot of overlap on the issues between the two camps. And, it’s not the first time in this thread that it’s been mentioned that a real tragedy here is the total loss in this election of any fiscal/economic conservatism.
In further irony, the left refers to conservative European socialist democracies with strong nationalist elements, like those in the Scandinavian countries, as examples of how social programs do work. Daily Show vod, HuffPost click-bait, so on, will mention the awesome statistics for wealth-distribution, access to medicine, conditions for the poor, retirement, child test scores, etc in the census data of countries like Finland. What they’re really comparing to though is much more in line with Trump’s vision than it is Hillary’s –isolationist, politically neutral, closed-bordered, racially monolithic, economically protectionist, etc.
Of course, I’ll mention also that these countries do not have nearly as robust Equal Protections as the US does, and by design. A lot of them strike me as just paying lip service to it. Something like, “hey, this worked out really well over there in the US, and we can agree that a lot of messed up stuff happened here (Europe) because of Nationalism, so I guess we have to give it a shot.” Meanwhile, they close their borders as much as is physically possible, deny public benefits to any non-nationals that do find themselves there, and fail to count them in any census data.
Equal Protections is something Northern Europe is reluctantly trying its hand at, meanwhile for the US, it’s not just something we do, it’s who we are. Since at least the early 20th centry, we have held out that a diverse, open-bordered, culturally-tolerant society is objectively better for overall national welfare, and that the benefits are intrinsic to those qualities. And for an equally long time, history has borne out the truth of that. The US would have to turn its back on 100’s of years of political culture, government process, and jurisprudence to have anything like a European socialist democracy. It would never happen through someone like Trump who takes no leadership on actual issues.
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?
On this, I don’t recall the topic lingering this thread for very long where someone said we should accept bigotry, or that condemning it is insensitive, belligerent, closed-minded, or some such. If it was expressed somewhere, I don’t recall it as something that comes up over and over.
What I do recall is the sentiment that if a person was already labeling support of legitimately current issues (like traditional marriage, refusing services on religious grounds, late-term abortions, segregated bathrooms, etc) as “bigotry”, then doing that somewhat disqualifies them from now being the ones to raise the alarm against the bigotry of Trump’s policy proposals. Not that the bigotry should be tolerated, just that the intended audience has long been totally justified in having stopped listening to those people who were always labeling everything as bigotry. And after those people left no choice but to be escorted out of the discussion, so to speak, what you have is a substantially weaker voice of reason, which was debatably necessary for the worst elements on the right to have taken the debate stage.
Speaking on growing acclimated to intolerable things, I find that American society is at far greater risk of acclimating itself to rhetoric that any degree of push back against the most progressive platform that can be conceived on paper could only be founded in “bigotry”. Or, that opposition to the conservative platform is “unpatriotic”, or what not. I don’t think we are growing acclimated to actual bigotry. In fact, it wasn’t until this election that issues took stage which were actually bigoted enough to require a virtual repeal of the 14th amendment to take effect. But for a long time now, there has been a sizeable element of the debate that has characterized moderates like McCain, Romney, etc, as bigots, simply for being the race/gender they are and/or taking the positions they did. That element shouldn’t be surprised at all that no one on the right will listen to them anymore.
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...
Just imagine the horror that ensues if Donald thinks this is a nice cop out after he loses. If he would publicly state that he actually didn't want to win because he wanted HRC to win. Imagine the democrats denying this is true.. The conspiracy theory outburst would make your head spin. Many people would actually believe Donald. We know he makes up things on the spot when he feels like it on that very moment. What if he feels that is a nice fun joke to make at that very moment?
Well, we do know that Trump supporters will believe absolutely anything the man says.
If he says the election is fixed against him, they will believe him.
If he says he saw thousands of people cheering when the towers fell, they will believe him.
If he says the media is biased against him, and everything bad they say about his is false, they will believe him.
If he says he was a front to cinch a Democratic win, they will believe him.
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
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.
They did.
That's why the KKK doesn't go around hanging black people anymore.
Well, we do know that Trump supporters will believe absolutely anything the man says.
If he says the election is fixed against him, they will believe him.
If he says he saw thousands of people cheering when the towers fell, they will believe him.
If he says the media is biased against him, and everything bad they say about his is false, they will believe him.
If he says he was a front to cinch a Democratic win, they will believe him.
Couldn't it be that Trump says things that he knows his supporters will agree with/already believe in?
Trump on Clinton: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks." Adds, "Though the second amendment folks, maybe there is..."
[tweet] [source video]
So yeah, joking or otherwise, Trump has suggested that assassination of Hilary Clinton is a reasonable method for stopping the appointment of Democratic Supreme Court judges.
Also on the list of Donald Trump news I found on twitter: Donald Trump may or may not have donated to NAMBLA. According to a conspiracy theory spambot. [link]
I'd feel bad, but fact-free accusations are like 70% of Trump's political output so far.
It's not the first time he's advocating eliminating people he doesn't like; he's got a quote way back in November about how Bergdahl should have been shot. He's using the same rhetorical tools (that are awful) for his new opponent. It sounds worse. But it's what he's been doing.
Can't believe I missed that. Dodgy.
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.
Wasn't Bergdahl basically being accused of desertion, though?
Yeah. While of course the facts of the case make it much more complicated, desertion in time of war is a potentially capital offense, so as far as crazy things Trump has said go this one is not that far out. Insinuating the assassination of a president, though... wow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wasn't Bergdahl basically being accused of desertion, though?
Yeah. While of course the facts of the case make it much more complicated, desertion in time of war is a potentially capital offense, so as far as crazy things Trump has said go this one is not that far out. Insinuating the assassination of a president, though... wow.
Maybe he's only advocating for the assassinations of supreme court nominees.
It's fascinating (and terrifying) to watch Trump continue to shred the norms of the US democratic system with his talks of rigged elections and assassination threats....
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.
Let me clarify. I wasn't referring to the Ravnica guilds specifically, but rather the general color philosophies which those guilds embody only a single facet of.
Donald Trump is, to the best of my knowledge, BR in personality and thought. We've seen several indicators that his motivations are, by and large, selfish. He is always his number one priority. We even have testimony saying he is running for president only for the prestige in entails. This is a very B philosophy. Trump has a sizable streak of R simply of how impulsive he is. He is headstrong, and has a very bad habit of saying the first thing that comes to mind, with no regard for the consequences such may have down the road. For these reasons, I think Turmp is BR
Hillary Clinton, I believe, is WB. All politicians tend to be at least partially W because they work within the established system of the government. They use law and order to their advantage. (Trump is an exception as he as largely ignored the established conventions.) Also, a fair majority politicians genuinely believe they are working for the greater good. In theory, it is possible for a politician to be mono-W, but in our modern political climate, this tends to be rare. They all generally acquire a streak of B by using the pragmatism, ruthlessness, and selfishness needed to survive in Washington. Clinton is a perfect embodiment of this balance.
Couldn't it be that Trump says things that he knows his supporters will agree with/already believe in?
This is undoubtedly true with regrades to his larger voter base, but his core supporters, the die-hard Trump or bust guys, will treat everything he says as gospel. I've seen this in action many times, as they've frantically tacked their rhetoric to match his random flip-flopping.
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
Well the good news is I no longer need to have a discussion with any Trump supporter. I just need to tell them he said he wanted someone to shoot Clinton and if they are okay with that then they aren't worthy of having a conversation.
Well the good news is I no longer need to have a discussion with any Trump supporter. I just need to tell them he said he wanted someone to shoot Clinton and if they are okay with that then they aren't worthy of having a conversation.
When Trump endorsed Paul Ryan, I was under the impression that someone had finally convinced him to get his ***** together and start acting like a real presidential candidate. So much for that...
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
So I gave this some more thought, and looking back at what was said, I'm actually not sure that I agree with all the outrage.
Trump is a hyperbolic person who constantly makes hypebolic comments. I'm not denying or even endorsing that, but rather, just trying to set the context here. His exact words were as follows:
"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said. "But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the entire purpose of the Second Amendment to give the people power to overthrow a tyrannical government? I'm not saying I do or do not believe that people with rifles are going to beat stealth bombers, but it's been my experience that most of the gun nuts (ie, the primary target audience of this particular statement) DO believe that. With those beliefs, isn't suggesting that the answer to a Supreme Court trying to outright abolish the Second Amendment should be armed revolt, well, logical? It's an extremely hyperbolic situation, but given those parameters, that's the exact thing that the amendment is intended to prevent from happening.
I think this is yet another example of Trump intentionally making a statement that could be taken in multiple contexts as an attempt to pander to his base while also leaving himself plausible deniability. It's the exact same tactic that he's been using for the past year to keep media attention on himself - those who support him will see the favorable context, and his detractors will obviously pick the least favorable context.
So it's not murderous, it's seditious. How much better is that really? If that were a viable explanation for Trump, his surrogates would be saying that's what he meant - but they're coming up with other ridiculous parsings. Aside from the gun nuts who fetishize the civil war and the idea of armed revolt, I don't think most people in America are any more comfortable with the idea that we'll have to overthrow the government of Hillary Clinton than they are with the idea that we'll have to assassinate Hillary Clinton.
Well, the UCMJ itself (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is distinguished by enabling military commanders to use discipline before thinking things through, and making decisions that don’t require a lot of grey matter. Even if there’s enough time to go through a court martial, there is a lower standard of proof there (not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ like in civilian court).
This is one I tend to sympathize with the viewpoint on the right. If a soldier needs to be assessed for stupidity, insanity, fitness for pressures, etc, or otherwise their deployment might be viewed as a “sort of crime”, that is a culture of victimhood that should probably not be allowed to prevail in the military. Debatably, it should not be allowed in the general society, either. It is hard to envision a country being able to field a military where a soldier has some sort of civil right for command to assess their status as a victim of the system before they can give orders or enforce discipline. He has his extreme style, but maybe Trump was trying to appeal to that idea.
This “Second Amendment” joke is really imprudent, though. But there too, I think it belongs with the set of boneheaded gaffes that Trump should never have said because of an inability to properly expound on them, rather than with his set of premeditated threats to human rights.
I think it’s very commonly believed among the right that some sort of Lockean “consent of the governed” principle is on a higher order than the Constitution itself, which could be viewed as having a foundation in the Declaration of Independence. That document very directly says that it’s the duty of citizens to overthrow insufferable governments. And the thing is, the 2nd Amendment has an extremely wide spectrum of interpretations that have been argued. One view toward the Left might be that it does no more than preserve the right of the States to have a National Guard (militia). The mainstream view on the Right seems to be an individual, private right to firearms, but an unqualified right. Somewhere in that view on the Right is that the 2nd amendment was intended to incorporate those principles of the Declaration of Independence into the Constitution.
My opinion, the nature of a constitution doesn’t require the writing in of any moral principles that may be superior to it. It could be of no legal effect, since a constitution is intended as the final authority. So, I find it unlikely that it was the founding intent to incorporate clauses that have no legal effect. And in practicality, the Abraham Lincoln administration certainly didn’t view any authority superior to the Constitution, so it’s hard to argue for a pre-Civil War interpretation of it. Notwithstanding my own opinion though, I think there’s plenty of room to make the argument in good faith that this is what the 2nd amendment should be taken to mean.
Trump’s comment was in very poor taste even so, but not necessarily bad faith. As mentioned before, if the Attorney General’s office thought that Trump had committed incitement, treason, sedition, what have you, then he would be arrested and arraigned for it. Anyone who would call this treason doesn’t have a lot of credibility in my mind.
Also I might add, isn’t it enough to focus on Trump’s deliberate, unrecanted threats to human rights? He’s threatened to ban Muslims from entering the US, threatened to target the families of terrorists, advocated torture, so on. This shotgun approach by media on the left to construe whatever Trump has most recently said in the least favorable light just makes this seem like any other election. We have a candidate who views himself as a dictator, and we are afraid he will get elected unless we can manufacture some click-bait to keep the Twitterverse humming?
So I gave this some more thought, and looking back at what was said, I'm actually not sure that I agree with all the outrage.
I think this is yet another example of Trump intentionally making a statement that could be taken in multiple contexts as an attempt to pander to his base while also leaving himself plausible deniability.
"I'm not actually sure that I agree with all the outrage. Oh by the way, the outrage is completely justified."
Did y'all already cover the guy scaling the Trump Tower, or is that old news? [link]
I don't see the significance of these news in this debate if I'm honest, care to explain it to me?
I think that Trumps statement about "shooting Hillary" was definitely overblown by the media (and I say that as someone who can't stand the man talking for more than a few seconds). Which doesn't mean that it wasn't dumb, but as someone else on here put it, if you try to read that much in such a vague statement you can as well say that Biden once wanted to kill Obama, which is of course stupid. Trump has said much less vague and dangerous things already, I don't think THIS statement specifically made him unvotable. That line has been crossed a long time ago. That he is too stupid to see why you don't just use nuclear weaponry is legitimately frightening.
I think that Trumps statement about "shooting Hillary" was definitely overblown by the media (and I say that as someone who can't stand the man talking for more than a few seconds). Which doesn't mean that it wasn't dumb, but as someone else on here put it, if you try to read that much in such a vague statement you can as well say that Biden once wanted to kill Obama, which is of course stupid. Trump has said much less vague and dangerous things already, I don't think THIS statement specifically made him unvotable. That line has been crossed a long time ago. That he is too stupid to see why you don't just use nuclear weaponry is legitimately frightening.
Its not just a vague statement though. Its part of a pattern of similar utterances that Trump has built up saying he wants his supporters to physically attack their opponents and how he could shoot someone in the street and his supporters only reaction would be to cheer.
Whilst we might hope that his audience is not going to go out and anything rash, there have been a number of instances of people who aren't overly stable going out and acting on very similar stimuli. Not least the recent murder of MP Jo Cox over here where attacker gave his name in court as 'death to traitors, freedom for Britain'.
Not to mention he is advocating overturning the democratic result of the election by using force at that point, since for Hilary to be in a postion to be nominating Supreme court Justices the election is over and the majority of the country has decided it would prefer her to run the country instead of him.
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
That he is too stupid to see why you don't just use nuclear weaponry is legitimately frightening.
This, to me, is the worst thing he has ever said. You don't use nukes because as soon as you do, you start sliding down the very steep and slippery slope that ends in NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION AND THE END OF THE WORLD.
Not to mention he is advocating overturning the democratic result of the election by using force at that point, since for Hilary to be in a postion to be nominating Supreme court Justices the election is over and the majority of the country has decided it would prefer her to run the country instead of him.
But he wouldn't be overturning a democratic result, because Clinton will have been elected by a small group of people voting 10 or 15 times, and he really is the most popular person in America and we have to trust him on all this because evidence is for liars and wimps.
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
That he is too stupid to see why you don't just use nuclear weaponry is legitimately frightening.
This, to me, is the worst thing he has ever said. You don't use nukes because as soon as you do, you start sliding down the very steep and slippery slope that ends in NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION AND THE END OF THE WORLD.
To quote one of my favorite statements on that matter: "The only winning move is not to play."
Seems to me that Trump either didn't watch that movie or didn't get the painfully obvious message...
It is especially frightening and anger inducing because he didn't say it in public to make a crass statement to provoke and get media attention. He legitimately had to be told why the US doesn't just use nuclear weaponry... three times if I heard correctly.
Even more troubling to me is that he seems to be one of a growing minority in the US and Russia who seem to think that using nuclear bombs is no problem at all. As a European I really hope for all of us that they never become a majority in either state...
No, wait, of course that's not true.
Great, now you have changed my fun little but not at all serious conspiracy theory into a very possible future nightmare.
The comparison to European Social Democracy is interesting. It sort of makes sense in that light that the Trump campaign thought themselves capable of wooing Bernie supporters. Although I think that the education level of this demographic would lean them toward a legitimate, qualified (read non-Trump) candidate, I also see a lot of overlap on the issues between the two camps. And, it’s not the first time in this thread that it’s been mentioned that a real tragedy here is the total loss in this election of any fiscal/economic conservatism.
In further irony, the left refers to conservative European socialist democracies with strong nationalist elements, like those in the Scandinavian countries, as examples of how social programs do work. Daily Show vod, HuffPost click-bait, so on, will mention the awesome statistics for wealth-distribution, access to medicine, conditions for the poor, retirement, child test scores, etc in the census data of countries like Finland. What they’re really comparing to though is much more in line with Trump’s vision than it is Hillary’s –isolationist, politically neutral, closed-bordered, racially monolithic, economically protectionist, etc.
Of course, I’ll mention also that these countries do not have nearly as robust Equal Protections as the US does, and by design. A lot of them strike me as just paying lip service to it. Something like, “hey, this worked out really well over there in the US, and we can agree that a lot of messed up stuff happened here (Europe) because of Nationalism, so I guess we have to give it a shot.” Meanwhile, they close their borders as much as is physically possible, deny public benefits to any non-nationals that do find themselves there, and fail to count them in any census data.
Equal Protections is something Northern Europe is reluctantly trying its hand at, meanwhile for the US, it’s not just something we do, it’s who we are. Since at least the early 20th centry, we have held out that a diverse, open-bordered, culturally-tolerant society is objectively better for overall national welfare, and that the benefits are intrinsic to those qualities. And for an equally long time, history has borne out the truth of that. The US would have to turn its back on 100’s of years of political culture, government process, and jurisprudence to have anything like a European socialist democracy. It would never happen through someone like Trump who takes no leadership on actual issues.
On this, I don’t recall the topic lingering this thread for very long where someone said we should accept bigotry, or that condemning it is insensitive, belligerent, closed-minded, or some such. If it was expressed somewhere, I don’t recall it as something that comes up over and over.
What I do recall is the sentiment that if a person was already labeling support of legitimately current issues (like traditional marriage, refusing services on religious grounds, late-term abortions, segregated bathrooms, etc) as “bigotry”, then doing that somewhat disqualifies them from now being the ones to raise the alarm against the bigotry of Trump’s policy proposals. Not that the bigotry should be tolerated, just that the intended audience has long been totally justified in having stopped listening to those people who were always labeling everything as bigotry. And after those people left no choice but to be escorted out of the discussion, so to speak, what you have is a substantially weaker voice of reason, which was debatably necessary for the worst elements on the right to have taken the debate stage.
Speaking on growing acclimated to intolerable things, I find that American society is at far greater risk of acclimating itself to rhetoric that any degree of push back against the most progressive platform that can be conceived on paper could only be founded in “bigotry”. Or, that opposition to the conservative platform is “unpatriotic”, or what not. I don’t think we are growing acclimated to actual bigotry. In fact, it wasn’t until this election that issues took stage which were actually bigoted enough to require a virtual repeal of the 14th amendment to take effect. But for a long time now, there has been a sizeable element of the debate that has characterized moderates like McCain, Romney, etc, as bigots, simply for being the race/gender they are and/or taking the positions they did. That element shouldn’t be surprised at all that no one on the right will listen to them anymore.
Well, we do know that Trump supporters will believe absolutely anything the man says.
If he says the election is fixed against him, they will believe him.
If he says he saw thousands of people cheering when the towers fell, they will believe him.
If he says the media is biased against him, and everything bad they say about his is false, they will believe him.
If he says he was a front to cinch a Democratic win, they will believe him.
"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
They did.
That's why the KKK doesn't go around hanging black people anymore.
Couldn't it be that Trump says things that he knows his supporters will agree with/already believe in?
[tweet] [source video]
So yeah, joking or otherwise, Trump has suggested that assassination of Hilary Clinton is a reasonable method for stopping the appointment of Democratic Supreme Court judges.
Also on the list of Donald Trump news I found on twitter: Donald Trump may or may not have donated to NAMBLA. According to a conspiracy theory spambot. [link]
I'd feel bad, but fact-free accusations are like 70% of Trump's political output so far.
Art is life itself.
Art is life itself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Maybe he's only advocating for the assassinations of supreme court nominees.
It's fascinating (and terrifying) to watch Trump continue to shred the norms of the US democratic system with his talks of rigged elections and assassination threats....
Let me clarify. I wasn't referring to the Ravnica guilds specifically, but rather the general color philosophies which those guilds embody only a single facet of.
Donald Trump is, to the best of my knowledge, BR in personality and thought. We've seen several indicators that his motivations are, by and large, selfish. He is always his number one priority. We even have testimony saying he is running for president only for the prestige in entails. This is a very B philosophy. Trump has a sizable streak of R simply of how impulsive he is. He is headstrong, and has a very bad habit of saying the first thing that comes to mind, with no regard for the consequences such may have down the road. For these reasons, I think Turmp is BR
Hillary Clinton, I believe, is WB. All politicians tend to be at least partially W because they work within the established system of the government. They use law and order to their advantage. (Trump is an exception as he as largely ignored the established conventions.) Also, a fair majority politicians genuinely believe they are working for the greater good. In theory, it is possible for a politician to be mono-W, but in our modern political climate, this tends to be rare. They all generally acquire a streak of B by using the pragmatism, ruthlessness, and selfishness needed to survive in Washington. Clinton is a perfect embodiment of this balance.
This is undoubtedly true with regrades to his larger voter base, but his core supporters, the die-hard Trump or bust guys, will treat everything he says as gospel. I've seen this in action many times, as they've frantically tacked their rhetoric to match his random flip-flopping.
"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
When Trump endorsed Paul Ryan, I was under the impression that someone had finally convinced him to get his ***** together and start acting like a real presidential candidate. So much for that...
"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
So it's not murderous, it's seditious. How much better is that really? If that were a viable explanation for Trump, his surrogates would be saying that's what he meant - but they're coming up with other ridiculous parsings. Aside from the gun nuts who fetishize the civil war and the idea of armed revolt, I don't think most people in America are any more comfortable with the idea that we'll have to overthrow the government of Hillary Clinton than they are with the idea that we'll have to assassinate Hillary Clinton.
Is this not the first reaction of the United States?
This is one I tend to sympathize with the viewpoint on the right. If a soldier needs to be assessed for stupidity, insanity, fitness for pressures, etc, or otherwise their deployment might be viewed as a “sort of crime”, that is a culture of victimhood that should probably not be allowed to prevail in the military. Debatably, it should not be allowed in the general society, either. It is hard to envision a country being able to field a military where a soldier has some sort of civil right for command to assess their status as a victim of the system before they can give orders or enforce discipline. He has his extreme style, but maybe Trump was trying to appeal to that idea.
This “Second Amendment” joke is really imprudent, though. But there too, I think it belongs with the set of boneheaded gaffes that Trump should never have said because of an inability to properly expound on them, rather than with his set of premeditated threats to human rights.
I think it’s very commonly believed among the right that some sort of Lockean “consent of the governed” principle is on a higher order than the Constitution itself, which could be viewed as having a foundation in the Declaration of Independence. That document very directly says that it’s the duty of citizens to overthrow insufferable governments. And the thing is, the 2nd Amendment has an extremely wide spectrum of interpretations that have been argued. One view toward the Left might be that it does no more than preserve the right of the States to have a National Guard (militia). The mainstream view on the Right seems to be an individual, private right to firearms, but an unqualified right. Somewhere in that view on the Right is that the 2nd amendment was intended to incorporate those principles of the Declaration of Independence into the Constitution.
My opinion, the nature of a constitution doesn’t require the writing in of any moral principles that may be superior to it. It could be of no legal effect, since a constitution is intended as the final authority. So, I find it unlikely that it was the founding intent to incorporate clauses that have no legal effect. And in practicality, the Abraham Lincoln administration certainly didn’t view any authority superior to the Constitution, so it’s hard to argue for a pre-Civil War interpretation of it. Notwithstanding my own opinion though, I think there’s plenty of room to make the argument in good faith that this is what the 2nd amendment should be taken to mean.
Trump’s comment was in very poor taste even so, but not necessarily bad faith. As mentioned before, if the Attorney General’s office thought that Trump had committed incitement, treason, sedition, what have you, then he would be arrested and arraigned for it. Anyone who would call this treason doesn’t have a lot of credibility in my mind.
Also I might add, isn’t it enough to focus on Trump’s deliberate, unrecanted threats to human rights? He’s threatened to ban Muslims from entering the US, threatened to target the families of terrorists, advocated torture, so on. This shotgun approach by media on the left to construe whatever Trump has most recently said in the least favorable light just makes this seem like any other election. We have a candidate who views himself as a dictator, and we are afraid he will get elected unless we can manufacture some click-bait to keep the Twitterverse humming?
"I'm not actually sure that I agree with all the outrage. Oh by the way, the outrage is completely justified."
... Really?
Obama founded ISIS and Hillary Clinton is the co-founder.
Yeah, its going to be like this from now
until November 8until his kids can inherit his money.Edit: OMG Clinton and Biden want to kill Obama!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0QAewVrR28
Biden in 2008: 'If Obama Fools With My Beretta, He's Got A Problem'
Art is life itself.
I don't see the significance of these news in this debate if I'm honest, care to explain it to me?
I think that Trumps statement about "shooting Hillary" was definitely overblown by the media (and I say that as someone who can't stand the man talking for more than a few seconds). Which doesn't mean that it wasn't dumb, but as someone else on here put it, if you try to read that much in such a vague statement you can as well say that Biden once wanted to kill Obama, which is of course stupid. Trump has said much less vague and dangerous things already, I don't think THIS statement specifically made him unvotable. That line has been crossed a long time ago. That he is too stupid to see why you don't just use nuclear weaponry is legitimately frightening.
Its not just a vague statement though. Its part of a pattern of similar utterances that Trump has built up saying he wants his supporters to physically attack their opponents and how he could shoot someone in the street and his supporters only reaction would be to cheer.
Whilst we might hope that his audience is not going to go out and anything rash, there have been a number of instances of people who aren't overly stable going out and acting on very similar stimuli. Not least the recent murder of MP Jo Cox over here where attacker gave his name in court as 'death to traitors, freedom for Britain'.
Not to mention he is advocating overturning the democratic result of the election by using force at that point, since for Hilary to be in a postion to be nominating Supreme court Justices the election is over and the majority of the country has decided it would prefer her to run the country instead of him.
- 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
This, to me, is the worst thing he has ever said. You don't use nukes because as soon as you do, you start sliding down the very steep and slippery slope that ends in NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION AND THE END OF THE WORLD.
But he wouldn't be overturning a democratic result, because Clinton will have been elected by a small group of people voting 10 or 15 times, and he really is the most popular person in America and we have to trust him on all this because evidence is for liars and wimps.
"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
To quote one of my favorite statements on that matter: "The only winning move is not to play."
Seems to me that Trump either didn't watch that movie or didn't get the painfully obvious message...
It is especially frightening and anger inducing because he didn't say it in public to make a crass statement to provoke and get media attention. He legitimately had to be told why the US doesn't just use nuclear weaponry... three times if I heard correctly.
Even more troubling to me is that he seems to be one of a growing minority in the US and Russia who seem to think that using nuclear bombs is no problem at all. As a European I really hope for all of us that they never become a majority in either state...