• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »


    People have differences of opinion on words and phrases. Why is it so hard for the left to get that? You can redefine racism and sexism as you have and start using your own wacky definitions, you're allowed. But you don't get to tell other people how to use language. If you want to convince them to do so, you can do that. But this is still America, so you don't get to impose that on everyone.

    Fake, not genuine, made up, concocted - it's what this report is and I'm fine using the phrase fake news to describe it.



    So your explanation for why you would say, "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing" is that the left vilifies the right for producing and promoting fake news, and you have chosen to redefine the term "fake news" to mean something substantively different from what the right does. You therefore conclude that because you use the same words "fake news", it constitutes the same thing. Tell me, have you also redefined the term "same" to mean something new that would make any of this make even the tiniest bit of sense?


    No sir, this is not a totalitarian state run by your sociology professors. You do not have the authority to decide what words are/aren't allowed to mean. I'm placing them in the same category because they're both news stories that are entirely make believe.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Pigglebee »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    It's terrible journalistic ethics to publish (or in CNN's case, ideologically promote) explosive allegations with no corroboration. I'm fine with the description 'fake news.'


    Interesting to see how easy you fall into Donald's spin on this news. As explained CNN only mentioned the existence. CNN already had that stuff for a long time and didn't publish anything about it until it becamse a thing in a briefing.

    Imagine Breitbart having stuff like this on Clinton. Would have headlined immediately.



    We're all pretty clear about what Breitbart is. The difference is that Breitbart didn't have any power... until now.

    Quote from Tiax »

    Is that what's got you all riled up? I get that you're giddy about seeing the lamestream media taken down a peg or whatever, but how about getting your facts straight first?


    These are words that would have been useful when fake news outlets USA Today and NBC News were writing inflammatory articles labeling Milo Yiannopoulos a white nationalist last week. You see, sometimes people are falsely accused of racism. :p

    Quote from onering »
    It's nice that your fine with an incorrect description, but that just proves you don't care about being correct.


    People have differences of opinion on words and phrases. Why is it so hard for the left to get that? You can redefine racism and sexism as you have and start using your own wacky definitions, you're allowed. But you don't get to tell other people how to use language. If you want to convince them to do so, you can do that. But this is still America, so you don't get to impose that on everyone.

    Fake, not genuine, made up, concocted - it's what this report is and I'm fine using the phrase fake news to describe it.


    Thanks for the flag btw, if your bs argument gets called out,the mature thing to do is try to censor the response, right?


    I can only recall flagging one single post in my 11 years on this forum. Don't flatter yourself, you aren't worth it.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    The other way around - what's interesting is the left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing. Since our fact-checking organizations of the future will apparently be Snopes and Pravda, expect fake left news to take off this year.


    Oh, the left does the same thing? Like how Obama never answered any questions from Fox? Oh wait...


    No, talking about fake news.

    Quote from onering »

    The idiot right loves to try to project. Its possible that he really doesn't understand the difference between reporting on a source and what has actually earned the moniker "fake news", that is garbage that is completely fabricated by the "news" outlet.


    It's terrible journalistic ethics to publish (or in CNN's case, ideologically promote) explosive allegations with no corroboration. I'm fine with the description 'fake news.'
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »


    Potentially false and libelous opposition news.

    https://www.facebook.com/SteveIrvin/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf

    Quote from Steve Irvin, ABC 15 News Arizona »

    Yes, I know it's trending.
    Yes, I know you can google it.
    No, we're not reporting it.
    Why?
    We can't independently verify it.
    Real journalists have standards.



    Whatdya know? Turns out that many people don't have a problem with fake news per se, but fake news that pushes a point that they don't like. :p


    So, long story short, they were right and you didn't notice. Figures.


    The other way around - what's interesting is the left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing. Since our fact-checking organizations of the future will apparently be Snopes and Pravda, expect fake left news to take off this year.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Trump went off today on fake news outlets Buzzfeed and CNN. There are plenty of things that are going to be bad about a Trump presidency, but this campaign that he's running against the garbage in the media is fantastic. Here's the video evidence.


    Refusing to take a question from CNN while taking a question from Breitbart is not cracking down on fake news, it's cracking down on oppositional news, and hoping people like you won't be able to tell the difference.


    Potentially false and libelous opposition news.

    https://www.facebook.com/SteveIrvin/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf

    Quote from Steve Irvin, ABC 15 News Arizona »

    Yes, I know it's trending.
    Yes, I know you can google it.
    No, we're not reporting it.
    Why?
    We can't independently verify it.
    Real journalists have standards.



    Whatdya know? Turns out that many people don't have a problem with fake news per se, but fake news that pushes a point that they don't like. :p
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Trump went off today on fake news outlets Buzzfeed and CNN. There are plenty of things that are going to be bad about a Trump presidency, but this campaign that he's running against the garbage in the media is fantastic. Here's the video evidence.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.

    Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?
    You said you would vote for Trump as a second choice after Gary Johnson, didn't you? So, why would you have voted for Trump?


    Oh, the fact that you thought that explains a lot of our previous discussion. I believe I said that if it came to Hillary or Trump and I had to pick one, I'd vote Trump. But my voting preferences looked a little like this:

    1. There are no libertarians? OK, Gary Johnson then.
    2. Is there a Constitution party guy or something? Do I actually agree with the Constitution party? <researches>
    3. Who is that guy from Utah?
    4. Stay home, don't vote.
    5. Trump for the LULz. He'll never win anyway.


    Apparently, whatever your other reasons were, one of them was because Trump not knowing what he was doing, and Trump being crazy - so much so as to evoke conspiracy theories that he was some kind of Democratic plant installed to ensure Hillary's victory - really didn't bother you all that much.


    Because it was funny. I was rooting so hard for Trump to win Florida and when he did it... wow, what a feeling. Never thought he would actually take it all. I might not have rooted for that if I knew. But again, it was him or Hillary so whatever really.


    Evidently 63 million people really weren't bothered by it either.


    I love that. I don't like Trump but yeah, this is why America is awesome. We just did something insane that is going to truly harm this country but really freak out leftists, the political elites in Europe, Canada, etc. We're doing this out of spite, for giggles, you know...
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    We're not on the same page here. He claims to have been mocking things because they were *false*: Jewish global conspiracies to conquer the world, miscegenation encouraged by governments to destroy the white race, etc. He didn't say he was mocking things that were *true*. Except he did mock things that were true because the Haitian genocide actually happened. You don't see any difference between conspiracy theories and things that actually happened? So if I say radical Muslims did 9/11 and then say radical Muslims are imposing Sharia law across the United States - those claims are on the same level?


    When white nationalists talk about white genocide, they cite the Haitian massacre as an example of what we have in store for us. (I'd rather not link to Stormfront, but you can Google and find some of their essays on the topic). He didn't choose that example by accident - he was mocking the perception of white nationalists that people like him yearn for a repeat of that massacre.


    That might make more sense of it, but the problem is that here's where the satire intersects with real life. He wrote a paper defending the revolution. I'm not particularly versed on the subject, but defending all of the consequences of the revolution is pretty controversial. As you know, we sometimes take up positions in history to provide context and give people or events a more thorough and fair hearing. Nevertheless, you start combining these behaviors together and it doesn't look good for this guy. You know, someone might argue that Holocaust death tolls are overestimated without being a Nazi sympathizer. But put a few other questionable claims and ideas into the mix and yeah, it's going to start looking bad for you at some point.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Tiax »

    My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.


    Well first of all it is different. And secondly, as usual, that doesn't actually answer the question, so I'm going to assume it's a yes unless you tell me otherwise. Now... do you think that a good amount of these kinds of people could have also voted for Obama in 2012 or would they have been too racist for that?


    Or "xenophobe", a term I actually used the post he was responding to. But people like Ljoss are so intent on finding something - anything to avoid confronting racism that he was happy to ignore it and lead us down this farcical tangent.


    You used the word racist right alongside xenophobic. You didn't have to, but you did. I don't know why you're so upset that I'm responding to the words you chose to use.

    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Did he actually say anything racist during the campaign trail, though? I could see chauvinist being a pretty appropriate word for him what with the way he treats women and all.

    Let me try to put this in my own words and you tell me if this is what you mean. Do you mean that: he has been suspicious of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslims and, while Mexicans and Muslims aren't a race (so that you can't be racist against Mexicans or Muslims), they still have associations with "brownness" and that kind of talk triggered all the people that have a latent (or not latent, actually) hatred of brown people?


    My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.
    To reinforce the point: Correcting the label from "racist" to "bigot" doesn't improve things any.


    Incidentally, it does if you're talking about hating white people. You can't be racist against white people because... power. And therefore, there's nothing wrong with it.

    Can you be bigoted against Scientology?



    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from Tiax »
    Do you actually think he wants white genocide?


    What I want to believe is that he was honest in his explanation that he was satirizing the white power crowd's idea of 'white genocide.' Equating miscegenation with genocide is laughable.

    But then everything else he says - including his first explanation as to the meaning of the tweet belies that notion. The events in Haiti have little to do with white nationalist conspiracy theories. Being concerned that a population which you are enslaving will rise against you and, in the ensuing chaos, destroy the innocent life among you - that would have been a rational fear possessed by a group of people that are apart from you in space and time. Whereas, say, a global conspiracy among the Jews who meet in secret to recruit blacks to get your children hooked on drugs blablabla... not so much.

    You asked for my opinion, knowing that I have limited information. So here it is. I believe that his anger about historical (and perhaps many present) injustices has devolved into a hatred of whiteness and of white people, even though he, himself is white, whereas his anger ought to be directed at injustice itself.

    I don't think that anyone who speaks about an entire race or gender in this way belongs in the classroom and I'm not going to make an exception because it's the correct group to hate.


    So really the problem here is that you're so blinded by your SJW fever dreams that you really do think he hates white people and supports white genocide.


    I didn't say that he really and truly deep down supports white genocide. Given that he's white, I doubt it. I do think he hates white people and, more than that, 'whiteness.' How much more would you want in the way of evidence than all of the tweets listed above?

    Can you name any living person today who hates white people and explain how you know that they do? Because 'abolish the white race' and 'All I want for Christmas is white genocide' seems like an awfully good start to me.


    You think Haiti has nothing do with white nationalist conspiracy theories, but white nationalists LOVE to bring up the Haitian massacre. It's like their go-to example. It seems to me that you just aren't well-informed enough to understand his tweets, and without that context you're reading into them what you want to see rather than what's actually there.


    We're not on the same page here. He claims to have been mocking things because they were *false*: Jewish global conspiracies to conquer the world, miscegenation encouraged by governments to destroy the white race, etc. He didn't say he was mocking things that were *true*. Except he did mock things that were true because the Haitian genocide actually happened. You don't see any difference between conspiracy theories and things that actually happened? So if I say radical Muslims did 9/11 and then say radical Muslims are imposing Sharia law across the United States - those claims are on the same level?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.

    Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?

    Because a huge number of people in the country yearn for outright racism and xenophobia in their politicians, and an even bigger number are useful idiots who think any racism ended in 1964 and will spend their time bemoaning the fact that anyone would dare use the word racism, while giving actual racism a pass.


    Did he actually say anything racist during the campaign trail, though? I could see chauvinist being a pretty appropriate word for him what with the way he treats women and all.

    Let me try to put this in my own words and you tell me if this is what you mean. Do you mean that: he has been suspicious of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslims and, while Mexicans and Muslims aren't a race (so that you can't be racist against Mexicans or Muslims), they still have associations with "brownness" and that kind of talk triggered all the people that have a latent (or not latent, actually) hatred of brown people?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Tiax »
    Do you actually think he wants white genocide?


    What I want to believe is that he was honest in his explanation that he was satirizing the white power crowd's idea of 'white genocide.' Equating miscegenation with genocide is laughable.

    But then everything else he says - including his first explanation as to the meaning of the tweet belies that notion. The events in Haiti have little to do with white nationalist conspiracy theories. Being concerned that a population which you are enslaving will rise against you and, in the ensuing chaos, destroy the innocent life among you - that would have been a rational fear possessed by a group of people that are apart from you in space and time. Whereas, say, a global conspiracy among the Jews who meet in secret to recruit blacks to get your children hooked on drugs blablabla... not so much.

    You asked for my opinion, knowing that I have limited information. So here it is. I believe that his anger about historical (and perhaps many present) injustices has devolved into a hatred of whiteness and of white people, even though he, himself is white, whereas his anger ought to be directed at injustice itself.

    I don't think that anyone who speaks about an entire race or gender in this way belongs in the classroom and I'm not going to make an exception because it's the correct group to hate.





    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    So here's a brand new story. Afterwards, I'll tell you why I'm talking about this story in particular. It's about a professor at Drexel University who is being investigated by the administration because of a tweet that read:


    All I want for Christmas is white genocide.


    When word broke, he defended himself by saying:

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Drexel-officials-Professor-George-Ciccariello-Mahers-White-Genocide-tweet-was-utterly-reprehensible.html

    On Christmas Eve, I sent a satirical tweet about an imaginary concept, 'white genocide,'" he said in an e-mail. 'For those who haven't bothered to do their research, 'white genocide' is an idea invented by white supremacists and used to denounce everything from interracial relationships to multicultural policies (and most recently, against a tweet by State Farm Insurance). It is a figment of the racist imagination, it should be mocked, and I'm glad to have mocked it


    ...which, if you agree with him, might push his tweet more into the tasteless category than the actionable one.

    But then, before news broke, he had already 'clarified' what he meant with the following tweet:


    To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed.


    So I'm not sure how many times you get to 'clarify' comments that are offensive on their face, apparently at least twice and in completely opposite ways.

    And that would be one thing if he didn't have a history of this:


    Abolish the white race



    [Bleep] the pig white majority


    So now let me explain why I quoted this story. Jay, you've alternately claimed that SJW is a nonsense term used to indict all progressives and that SJWs are just people fighting for equality.

    On the first point, I think I'm actually doing progressives a favor by distinguishing out some of the nuts from the rest of them. Though this professor is very likely to accept the label of progressive and though a shockingly large amount of progressives actually support this behavior (check out his timeline), I genuinely believe that the majority of progressives do not think it's appropriate to be advocating the genocide of any group of people - even whites.

    As for fighting for equality: there's a difference between talking about it and actually doing it. Maybe this man actually does it to a large degree. But I don't want this being the face of the fight for equality. And I think it's total bull for people to be labeled as defenders of white nationalism just because they say this is not appropriate behavior from a professor.


    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Highroller »
    [quote from="Medail »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/766271-is-the-future-of-the-democratic-party-purely?comment=3"]
    I have already pointed out how Trump only barely won this election, rendering the narrative that Trump represents a sort of white working class uprising an absurdity.


    Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.

    Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?

    As for the subject at hand, yeah, I think the Democrats will stay the party of minorities and the cosmopolitan elements of the majority. They may move even further in that direction now. Whites will be a minority very shortly in the States, so the Democrats just have to stick to the game plan.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Jay13x »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.


    I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***

    ***which is not to say that something being a middle ground or a moderate position necessarily makes it right, but I think in this case.

    When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
    The funny thing here is, you say you don't where the middle ground on race is, but that's because you're moving the Overton Window without even realizing it. You're normalizing an ideology that wants really ugly, inexcusable things because people who want equality also sometimes use ugly language. But they're not remotely the same.

    Comparing "SJWs" to White Nationalists is absurd. White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.

    Besides, "SJW" is a group that you're defining as having the same agenda, which is rarely the case. White Nationalists share the same rhetoric and goals (an America with only whites, or with whites in power), whereas Feminism is just one movement of many lumped into "SJW", and one that's not even cohesive within itself. I'd hardly call that a fair comparison. If one person wants ethnic cleansing, and one person wants fairness, they're not the same just because they both say mean things.

    Now, to be blunt, of course everyone is racist. It's not okay for a black person to be anti-semetic or homophobic, and it's something rarely talked about. There are plenty of feminists who, frankly, don't know what they're talking about. But acting like that's equivalent to White Nationalism's agenda? That's not even close.


    There's a lot to dissect here, so I'm not going to make twenty quote tags.

    You accuse me of normalizing white nationalism. Let me say first that I have no interest in doing so, as I consider it among the most wrongheaded of ideas. But, more importantly, I do not see how I have actually done that in the post you quoted. It's not my intention to say, "oh, much of white nationalism is just SJWism reversed, so really no big deal" - if that's what you thought I was saying. Quite the opposite. In fact I am saying "white nationalism is crazy and many of these people are saying things that are at times virtually indistinguishable from white nationalism and damned if that doesn't give me pause."

    You suggest that I am saying SJWism and white nationalism are the same. I haven't said this, and I don't think this. Just because I'm pointing out similarities, that doesn't mean that I think the two things are the same. I am saying they share certain troubling qualities.

    You say that "White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. Leaving aside the mention of the U.S. as there are white nationalists all around the world, I agree. I would define white nationalism as the desire for the creation and retention of a community of people which shall be solely restricted to people with white skin through the use of force and/or intimidation and/or social pressure. So then, fine, let's go ahead and use that phrase as intended and not, say, to automatically describe anyone who wants to enforce immigration laws (in the U.S., because enforcing those laws elsewhere is barely ever discussed) or anyone who is concerned about radical Islam, etc. Those beliefs can overlap, but they are not the same and that's kind of a big deal.

    You say that '"SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power.' I would remind you that white nationalists absolutely want their group to be treated fairly and equitably and they would have no problem telling you that. But their understanding of what is fair and equitable is completely off the rails because they hold false beliefs to justify it. They might view Jews as greedy, conniving conspirators due to their genetics and blacks as ruthless savages due to their genetics. If that were actually true, then suddenly keeping those people away from the innocent whites or, heck, even committing mass violence against them might be justified to one degree or another - and that might very well be considered a fair treatment to the innocent whites. But since those things are not true, it's just insane.

    Lest I'm misunderstood for that last paragraph, once again, I'm not saying that white nationalists and SJWs are the same. In this case: the use of buzzwords doesn't mean anything. You have to actually investigate and interpret the ideas and actions and decide for yourself. IOW: you're not an ancap, so do you hate freedom?

    Some more recent examples in the past month: MTV posts a "New Year's resolutions for white men" video but for once actually has to pull it down because the backlash was too severe. This is encouraging because rarely do you get such an outcry from moderates (who I think were involved, given the quick reaction).

    Shakespeare not diverse enough for UPenn's English students, tear down portrait and replace it with a more diverse author. (How any one person can be considered 'diverse' is beyond me - it's not like "here's 10 English authors and they're all white men." And why there should be any surprise that a central figure in the English language is, after all, ethnically English... again, no clue.

    If you study the classics because they represent, in part, the foundation of Western Civilization, you're on a slippery slope to white supremacy. I mean, come on...

    It's very important to understand that these are not isolate incidents, they are happening every day.

    SJWs are not white nationalists. They are not nearly as dangerous as white nationalists, but for the fact that their ideas and their power structure is rarely challenged. It is instead allowed to run roughshod over academia. It puts into the spotlight divisions between groups of people in a way that it claims gives attention to those divisions and inequities but I say it enhances those divisions. If the election of Trump was a whitelash, perhaps it was a two-pronged one: by white nationalists on the one hand and by opponents of identity politics on the other.


    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society

    Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.


    I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***

    ***which is not to say that something being a middle ground or a moderate position necessarily makes it right, but I think in this case.

    When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »
    The electorate disagrees with you. Hillary didn't spend enough time speaking to issues that concerned whites.
    You're moving your goalposts. It's a long way from "Clinton lost the white vote" to "Democrats treat whites as the enemy." You complain about people spinning the facts to match narratives, but have you taken a second look at your narrative? That the liberal elite are cynically demonizing "white people" as a group for some reason despite still being mostly white themselves? Could it possibly be that what was actually happening was very different, and you just can't see it because you're too wrapped up in your projected hate for and sanctimonious condemnation of them?

    Let's look at just one example. You like so many others have fixated on the "deplorables" comment, but for all your fixation you missed what Clinton actually said in it. She was quite specific. And not in an obfuscatory after-the-fact "clarification" a la Trump, but right in the speech itself:

    "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that."

    Not mentioned? White people. Neither explicitly nor in implication.


    So she's saying that half of those 59 million people racist, xenophobes, Islamophobes, etc. and you're quoting the whole thing to me to show how it isn't ridiculous? When was the last time we saw such a generalization? Could it be when Trump called all Mexicans, all Mexican immigrants, all illegal immigrants from Mexico, most illegal immigrants from Mexico criminals, rapists, etc.?


    And now I would like you to stop railing at your imaginary liberals and engage with these actual words spoken by the actual Democratic presidential candidate -- words cherry-picked not by me, but by her opponents seeking to condemn her. Tell me, ljossberer, as a libertarian, if there is a single word (aside from the infamous "half") with which you disagree.


    You can't just take the 'half' away. 'Half' is kind of a big deal. Like as big as a border wall in Trump's own mind.


    Are racists deplorable? Yes or no?


    Yes, but people like Ellen DeGeneres do not fall under this category.


    Are sexists deplorable? Yes or no?

    Are homophobes deplorable? Yes or no?

    Are xenophobes deplorable? Yes or no?


    Yes.


    Are Islamophobes deplorable? Yes or no?


    If you attack random Muslims on the street or discriminate against them, yes. But in general I do not use this word.


    Are there people like that? Yes or no?


    Obviously.


    But wait, there's more! She goes right on to say:

    ""But the other basket... are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change... Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."


    You'd have to be pretty lost not to understand that.


    So on the one hand we've got a woman saying that bigotry is deplorable and that we need to listen to people who feel like they're not being listened to. This woman, in your narrative, is treating white people as the enemy. And on the other hand we've got a group of people who are now proudly styling themselves "deplorables", avowing either that they really are bigots or that they're just ignorant of the context of the word. These people, in your narrative, are the blameless victims of liberal abuse.

    Can you see the disconnect yet?


    No. She ignored the midwest and all those deplorable hicks that "cling to God and guns." She's paying for it now.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    So Kris Kobach has been named to Trump's transition team.

    He created the "Papers Please" law, SB 1070. This law allows police to detain people on suspicion of them not being US citizens, and it's been called the most racist law in the modern USA. He's also got a history of trying to disenfranchise non-white and non-male voters, and worked for an anti-immigrant hate group before becoming secretary of state. [link]

    For those of you keeping score, Trump's council now contains at least one open White Nationalist and two people who previously were members of hate groups.


    Who is this alleged 'open white nationalist'? Please don't tell me you're talking about Stephen Bannon.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    We're already seeing the high school walkouts and the reports of white supremacist morons intimidating people. The media is going to live off this for months if not longer. What the media will not show is the violent protests or things like this or this. This will continue to be the narrative, the same one they have pushed all throughout election season. The one they dragged out every musician or actor or actress they could find to push. The one they pushed with their crappy polling data.

    But you see, they don't have the power anymore. They're scared. Oh they're sooo scared because now they have to listen to the 'deplorables,' the ones that 'cling to guns and religion.' They told those people that this wasn't their country anymore, that their voices, thoughts, opinions and feelings didn't matter. They expected those people to just roll over and die before the great god of the demographic shifts. Now they're mad because those people actually bothered to fight back. They were playing the game just as much as Trump did, but they don't want to admit it. They cloak their hate in projection. This is why they don't talk about all the times Trump was threatened and chased from major U.S. cities in what was supposed to be a free, Democratic election. They cloak their hate in sanctimonious condemnation of obscure concepts they've invented like 'the patriarchy' and 'privilege.' They exclude, deny and belittle just as much as their opponents do - but they post "LOVE TRUMPS HATE" signs next to their burning Donald Trump effigies, so it's OK. Now they have to listen to the people they hate so much: the hicks, the hillbillies, the ones that go to brunch after church, the ones that can't take their dog for a walk at night because of the latin street gangs, etc. Now they have to sit down and listen. Now the media has to listen. Now the political establishment - including the Republicans - has to listen.

    There are indeed aspects of this election that are incredibly disturbing. Those aren't among them.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from icehippo »
    Despite Trump being elected I still have a glimmer of hope. Young people overwhelming vote democrat. Eventually these young people will grow up and be the old people that always vote. Then, finally then, we can actually make some progress in this country. Until then, women, gays, minorities, pretty much anyone who isn't a white male, just try to hang in there. It's only going to get a lot worse before it gets better.


    What do you plan to do with all the white males once you take control?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    David Duke carried 3% of the vote in the Senate race in Louisiana. That's impressive in the sense that there were several candidates running but at the end of the day, it's just 3%. That's about 3% too much, but it gives you a good sense of how many of these people there really are. And within that 3%, many have no interest in taking action. The point is, dismissing 59,000,000+ votes as if they're all endorsing racism is ridiculous. The Democrats tried to do that and now they're paying for it.



    David Duke got 3% of the vote in one of the least white states in America (only Hawaii, Mississippi, Maryland and Georgia are less white than Louisiana) - presumably his support is almost exclusively from the white portion of the voters, of which he won perhaps 5%. He did so without any significant funding. He did so as an actual former KKK grand wizard. He received over 50,000 votes, and even made it to the debate stage (perhaps a lesson in what happens when you lower that bar too much).

    But you're right, there aren't 59,000,000 David Dukes out there. If we extrapolate his 58,581 votes in Louisiana to the US population, there are perhaps about 4,000,000 David Duke voters out there (Louisiana is perhaps more racist than the average, but also has far fewer white voters than the average). You then have many millions more who are perhaps unwilling to outright vote for a KKK grand wizard, but are still pretty racist. Beyond that you have those are probably not terribly racist, but are basically unbothered by racism. The type of people who look back at the 1950s and think that was when America was "great".


    The most recent demographic info that I could find about Louisiana shows that it was about 65 percent white as of 2005. It has a large black population but a rather small hispanic population. Also we're talking about whites in Louisiana, not, say New Jersey.

    Violent racism (e.g. Dylan Roof) is a problem. Non-violent racism (e.g. discrimination in housing) is a problem. Casual racism (e.g. being less friendly to a customer of color in retail) is a problem. They are not all the same problem. They fall under the same enormous umbrella, but they are not all the same in magnitude, nor of import.

    The thing is, if someone wants to assign the "racist" characteristic to all whites as a means to disregard their interests and therefore their votes, then those people are just as bad as those that they criticize.



    Quote from Blinking Spirit »

    They didn't do it this time. This may come as a shock to you, but Hillary Clinton is white.


    The electorate disagrees with you. Hillary didn't spend enough time speaking to issues that concerned whites.

    Dr. Ben Carson is black and a prominent Trump supporter. Does that prove that Trump isn't racist towards black people? I don't think so.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    This will likely flush some of the morons out of their holes and that is terrifying but they're already there, and that's the problem.
    Yeah, that is a large part of the problem. When someone who uses the tactical throwing-of-minorities-under-the-bus gets elected, that makes people with horrible bigoted ideas feel like they're welcome in society and can do what they want, leading to noticeable spikes in hate crimes and increased mobilization of hate groups. This always happens.

    Meanwhile: Trump's Tax plan sucks for low income Americans, particularly those with larger families. Taxes will go down for businesses and the rich. Yay, centralizing wealth in the hands of the already wealthy, allowing them to further influence national and international law.


    In 2008, in the middle of an economic crisis (which is the kind of thing that tends to stoke racial tension), the U.S. elected its first bi-racial President. Though recovering, the economy was still sluggish and, 4 years later, Americans went ahead and re-elected that same bi-racial President. After 4 more years and with a better economy (overall, not necessarily locally), that bi-racial President had good approval ratings heading into the 2016 election. Then, completely out of nowhere, Trump becomes President elect. Because racism?

    Why did Trump fare better with blacks and hispanics than Romney did? What is responsible for this surge in what you call racism? Backlash against a bi-racial President that won convincingly in back to back elections, against a President who was still popular on the eve of the election? Backlash against a national economy that's in crisis? In short, where have these 59 million racists been for the past 8 years?

    Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe whites are the enemy. But you know what didn't help the cause? Treating whites as the enemy. Maybe the Democrats have learned not to treat them as such next time.

    Quote from Surging Chaos »

    Way back ago in the Trump thread I told you about the silent majority and how it was a thing. You scoffed at the idea ignored me at your own peril. Who's laughing now?


    This is hysterical. The meltdown is real. Embrace it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    My point being that I said nothing denoting slavery and the counter-point is to automatically say I'm implying slavery. This is the liberal attitude that lost them the election. They constantly call anyone who disagrees with them a racist and we non-racists got sick and tired of it.
    Strap in, breh. You voted for the KKK's favorite candidate, and his bigoted vice president.

    The inevitable surge in hate crimes, and all associated deaths and woundings are on you and those who voted with you. That's what voting is: responsibility.


    In the way that attending mosque makes you responsible for the San Bernadino or Orlando attacks, or voting for Jill Stein makes you responsible for an ELF bombing or voting for Hillary makes you responsible for the current violence in Oakland, etc. Which is to say not at all. Crazy people gonna be crazy. This will likely flush some of the morons out of their holes and that is terrifying but they're already there, and that's the problem.

    David Duke carried 3% of the vote in the Senate race in Louisiana. That's impressive in the sense that there were several candidates running but at the end of the day, it's just 3%. That's about 3% too much, but it gives you a good sense of how many of these people there really are. And within that 3%, many have no interest in taking action. The point is, dismissing 59,000,000+ votes as if they're all endorsing racism is ridiculous. The Democrats tried to do that and now they're paying for it.

    Quote from gum0nshoe »


    There was zero anti-religous rhetoric in Clinton's campaign. So, yeah, you're making **** up.


    I was a little uneasy with the suggestion that people like Murdoch are only Catholic because they desperately want to be Evangelical but can't admit it to others.

    Quote from cranial_extraction »

    My point being that I said nothing denoting slavery and the counter-point is to automatically say I'm implying slavery. This is the liberal attitude that lost them the election. They constantly call anyone who disagrees with them a racist and we non-racists got sick and tired of it.


    IMO, that's a big aspect of this that is not being recognized. As a non-Trump voter in a relatively liberal area, I was surprised to find out how many of my white male (and even female) friends were Trump supporters. I even had a friend that was an avid supporter of Bernie and was contemplating whether Jill Stein or Trump was the right choice for him. None of these were the kinds of people that I've ever heard a racial remark from, nor a comment about immigration, radical Islam or anything of the like. The general feeling that I gathered from these people was that there was a sense that the Democrats really didn't care about them because they didn't fit into any specific special interest group.

    I would urge the media and Democrats to stop with this narrative that we have 59,000,000 foaming at the mouth white racists (some of which are not white yet still white racists). Because if that's true, we're all screwed anyway. But if it's not true and you continue to ignore all those people then they are going to keep pooling in a block with the few who truly are 'deplorable.' Wake up.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    1. Probably not.
    2. People are overreacting.
    3. No clue.
    4. Yes.

    Maybe Trump was a cosmic balancing effect because you guys have the anti-Trump in Trudeau.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from DirkGently »
    Whelp, here's hoping both parties collapse, we get rid of the electoral college, and maybe create an election process that makes one iota of sense.

    Won't happen, of course, but I need happy thoughts right now.


    What's wrong with the electoral college? Without it, all the power in this country will be concentrated in just a few small places: New York, LA, Chicago, etc.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Democratic Crack Up
    Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. At first it seemed like he was just taking out the GOP but now it looks like he's done the same to the Democrats. I mean, honestly, if you're the Democrats, how do you come back from this embarrassment and repudiation? Not to mention that they don't control the house or the senate, either.

    If you're the Dems moving forward, you have a leadership and a message deficit. Can you really run Bernie back out there in 2020, at his age? Likely not. Is Hillary now practically untouchable? Where are the up and comers and what is the message?

    With the GOP, meanwhile, how do you deal with the fact that you've got a guy in the White House with your letter after his name that you can't stand? When was the last time something like that happened?

    If you're the GOP moving forward, are you one party or two? While Trump was winning Florida, Rubio was too. Can you re-align your party into one or is this a permanent splinter and how do you re-form yourselves?

    Of all the many negative things about this result, maybe one positive is for those of us that aren't down with the status quo, you're about to see a major shakeup.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Is this perhaps reminiscent of what happened with John Kerry - where there were a lot of "anybody but Bush" votes out there for him but maybe not enough positive energy to get out more purely pro-Kerry votes?


    Basically; I think like Kerry & Gore the dems went with a "safe" candidate that towed the line but was totally uninspiring. You've got to run for something. Barack showed us how to do that, and we ****** up.


    I'd imagine that if you somehow slotted 2000 Al Gore or 2004 John Kerry into 2016 Hillary's spot, both Gore and Kerry would have won this election vs. Trump. While Gore and Kerry were both uninspiring (IMO, of course), I can't recall too many scandals attached to them. I believe it's the convergence of being uninspiring and the scandals.

    Quote from GustavitoHouses »

    It all starts with people born in the USA calling themselves "America". You are Americans but you are not "America". America is a continent not a country.


    We call the country "America."

    We call the continents either "The Americas" or "North America" or "South America."

    That's what we do. You all go ahead and keep doing your own thing, no one is stopping you. But no one is stopping us, either.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Quote from Dos_Rouge »

    her miscalculation was she ignored the rural voters, the ones who said they weren't being included.


    No. That's not enough in presidential politics. I think the numbers already point to a huge number of people sitting out of the election. When that happens it doesn't take much for the rural vote to just kind of take over. Her problem was that she was quintessentially unexciting and mistrusted. Her inability to get people to vote for her to care that would normally have done so for an average candidate with her views is why she lost.


    Is this perhaps reminiscent of what happened with John Kerry - where there were a lot of "anybody but Bush" votes out there for him but maybe not enough positive energy to get out more purely pro-Kerry votes?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    So what were Hillary's miscalculations... what did she do wrong?

    And why did the media get it so wrong?

    Trump actually carried a higher % of the black and hispanic vote than Romney. The black vote is a little less surprising just because he wasn't running against Obama. But the hispanic vote is pretty interesting. I don't think those were big difference makers, but that's quite an accomplishment for a man that is literally Hitler.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    I was so close to praising the left for not rioting yet, but yeah... predictable. People are worried that Trump is going to undermine our democractic institutions but then they go out and act all European and whatnot.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from icehippo »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from icehippo »
    Trump is going to deport all the Mexicans, build a giant wall, and ban all Muslims from the country. And through all of this, I'm supposed to tell my son to not hate people because of the color of their skin...sad times.


    He's going to deport people with American citizenship? How does that work?


    Thanks troll, I'll specify. "Undocumented" or "illegal" aka people who are here because their own country is junk and they want a better opportunity for themselves and family


    That's pretty darn different you know? Outrageously different, in fact. Maybe if the Dems and the media hadn't been speaking in a misleading way like that, they wouldn't have to deal with what just happened. It's a possibility.

    Also: just the Mexican ones? Canadians, Belgians, Nigerians are fine?

    And no, he's not going to do that anyway. He doesn't have the funds to do it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from icehippo »
    Trump is going to deport all the Mexicans, build a giant wall, and ban all Muslims from the country. And through all of this, I'm supposed to tell my son to not hate people because of the color of their skin...sad times.


    He's going to deport people with American citizenship? How does that work?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from MrM0nd4y »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from MrM0nd4y »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Losers: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the corporate elite, the Hollywood elite, Washington D.C. insiders

    Winners: Donald J. Trump

    Laughing


    Losers cont: Black people, Hispanics, LGBT Americans, the environment...


    David Duke: received 3.4% of the vote in Louisiana. Because racism is worse than ever and Trump is literally Hitler.


    You don't have to be a klansman to be racist. And Trump/Pence are no friends to the environment.


    I'd be livid if a Klansman were just elected to the office of President. I'm not as concerned about an alleged super secret racist.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    David Duke: received 3.4% of the vote in Louisiana. Because racism is worse than ever and Trump is literally Hitler.


    So basically it's a hair above Libertarianism?


    Slightly above the Libertarian Party candidate for POTUS. Because the Libertarian Party, like white nationalism is totally a force to be reckoned with. Uhh
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from MrM0nd4y »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Losers: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the corporate elite, the Hollywood elite, Washington D.C. insiders

    Winners: Donald J. Trump

    Laughing


    Losers cont: Black people, Hispanics, LGBT Americans, the environment...


    David Duke: received 3.4% of the vote in Louisiana. Because racism is worse than ever and Trump is literally Hitler.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Like I said, he's a demagogue. There's not as much need for the demagoguery once he's in the White House. Further, he's going to have certain Republicans that are going to join the Democrats to fight him every step of the way. Not too worried - not that much more than usual at least.
    Let's ignore the obvious fact that Donald Trump is a narcissist that cannot take the slightest amount of negative criticism toward himself - because you certainly already have ignored this - and focus on the fact that your argument is Donald Trump will change his behavior after you have rewarded his behavior through positive reinforcement by giving him exactly what he wanted.

    And you're sitting there thinking, "Yup! That definitely makes sense in my mind!"

    Astounding.



    Dude, I still don't understand if you realize that he was running against Hillary Clinton. How is that scenario any better? This has restored my faith in America.

    Also, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I don't think I've ever been, though my position is nuanced.

    Because Hillary is at least a half decent candidate.


    We've been through this before: just as bad + not funny + works for the establishment.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Like I said, he's a demagogue. There's not as much need for the demagoguery once he's in the White House. Further, he's going to have certain Republicans that are going to join the Democrats to fight him every step of the way. Not too worried - not that much more than usual at least.
    Let's ignore the obvious fact that Donald Trump is a narcissist that cannot take the slightest amount of negative criticism toward himself - because you certainly already have ignored this - and focus on the fact that your argument is Donald Trump will change his behavior after you have rewarded his behavior through positive reinforcement by giving him exactly what he wanted.

    And you're sitting there thinking, "Yup! That definitely makes sense in my mind!"

    Astounding.



    Dude, I still don't understand if you realize that he was running against Hillary Clinton. How is that scenario any better? This has restored my faith in America.

    Also, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I don't think I've ever been, though my position is nuanced.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Losers: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the corporate elite, the Hollywood elite, Washington D.C. insiders

    Winners: Donald J. Trump

    Laughing
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    They really told the left-wing elitist establishment what was on their mind, didn't they?

    IMO: a total disaster, but a more entertaining one than it would have been if Hillary was elected. Link
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    But insulated within the Presidential office, being removed from the pressures of an election, I do believe he'll be more restrained.
    HOW? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE THIS?

    How much denial do you have to be in?


    Hopefully less than it took to think Hillary was an electable candidate. Grin

    Like I said, he's a demagogue. There's not as much need for the demagoguery once he's in the White House. Further, he's going to have certain Republicans that are going to join the Democrats to fight him every step of the way. Not too worried - not that much more than usual at least.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Very disappointed in Gary Johnson's results so far.

    Nice to see that Crooked Hillary will not have any kind of mandate, though. Trump voters are sending a big middle finger to the corrupt establishment, the status quo and the phony scumbags in Hollywood.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from gumOnShoe »

    For people who see literally no difference in severe consequences between Trump & Clinton I can understand doing anything else, but I can't personally understand anyone who actually thinks the two are equivalently bad or that Trump has any positive attributes that would make him a good president to begin with.


    I don't want the U.S. to function as the world police anymore. Oddly enough, Trump is the slightly better choice here as he's the only one of the two that hasn't led the U.S. to war (because he hasn't had the chance) and he's at least asking the rest of NATO to pay its fair share for once.



    What do you mean for once? We have been paying our fair share since the Second World War. Both in terms of cold hard cash and the rather large number of American millitary bases that are scattered across the continent that you don't pay market value for.


    I'd rather the U.S. not be a part of NATO. But as long as the it is going to be, it's ridiculous that it continues to allow most of its fellow member states to continually fail to meet their obligations.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/


    Many European members -- including big economies like France and Germany -- spend less than the amount called for by NATO guidelines.



    Even NATO itself admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare.



    Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target.


    Quote from Highroller »

    Define what this means, exactly.


    Magickware has this covered pretty well. People should be able to speak their minds on matters of civic importance, even if their ideas are unpopular. If they are false, if they are hateful (and many of Trump's ideas could be classified as at least one of the two) then expose them. But what has been happening on college campuses for years now, and what is happening in many other venues and what is happening to Trump - being chased from major cities by threats and violence - these things I do not accept.

    Quote from Pouncing Kavu »

    I strongly disagree. The answer to demagoguery of the left has to be a measured, rational response, not the (even worse) demagoguery of the right.


    But unfortunately, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. They are winning.

    Do you think the PC police will just accept defeat if Trump is elected?


    No, I don't. But for once, the fight has been joined.

    You even go on to say that Hillary is better for rational discourse... don't you see that as completely contradictory?


    No, I don't. She rather obviously speaks more soberly, civilly and that is good. But she does so within the pre-defined boxes of politically correct expectation.

    Quote from Gum0nshoe »


    I'm not sure that this is true. Yeah, Clinton still wants to be World Police Chief; you'll brook no argument here. But, Trump has gone on record saying he wants to bomb the families of terrorists, which is a strict no-no even in the libertarian play book since it crosses a line from defense to offense.


    FWIW, I think "especially" could replace "even" in that sentence. I don't disagree.


    I think if we really look at Trump, who is instigatory at his core; we can see a great capacity for warfare and a likely unpredictable cause of conflict. I'm really unsure as to how "hasn't had the chance to start wars" yet is ... safer?


    I think (and expect most here will agree) that he is a tremendous demagogue. Not just in the sense that most politicians are, but way beyond that. He's made hay by being a rabblerouser. But insulated within the Presidential office, being removed from the pressures of an election, I do believe he'll be more restrained.

    We're guessing about him. Educated guesses, perhaps. But Hillary can be judged by the fact that she's already been hawkish in office and that's a very well educated guess.

    I can understand why this would offer little comfort to you or others and don't blame you if you think Hillary is the preferable candidate in this respect. But what I do oppose strenuously is the idea that the anti-war choice is clear.


    NATO members do pay into the system, not maybe in the amounts we do;


    No one expects them to pay into the system to the degree that the U.S. does. They do not have the same resources.

    but, NATO exists because we were filling a void and we had the power to prop the system up. I don't think that pulling back on NATO is likely to change our role in the world or our interests in it. And it's worth noting that Trump supported an expansion of NATO powers into investigating terrorism, which is world police goal #1. If you're a libertarian isolationist, I can see how any pull back looks good; but, I just don't see Trump discarding a tool at his disposal that lets him flex his ego. "We're going to bomb ... <fill in the blank>" is a common rhetorical piece of language in his speeches. I think it's worth taking the man at his word.


    I'm saying that a NATO "pullback"(in the sense that member states are expected to meet the obligations that they agreed to) would be a good thing from my perspective because it would reduce U.S. expenditure and further decentralize defense, giving the local member states more power within their own spheres.


    I expect we'd go to war under both presidents. But I'd expect a Clinton war to be relatively well ordered and defined. I'd expect one under Trump to be massively scaring, unpredictable and likely to escalate without anyone to hold the breaks. You know, a Bush like war, but without any belief in a god or human compassion. So, ill thought out, ill planned, executed poorly, major ramifications, potentially started on a lie or a wag-the-dog type situation.


    But the Bush wars and the Clinton wars are the same ones.

    I understand/respect your fears, though.


    I think you're voting for World Police or Unfettered Rage Monster. And I don't think that that's surprising.


    Option C please? :p
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from gumOnShoe »

    For people who see literally no difference in severe consequences between Trump & Clinton I can understand doing anything else, but I can't personally understand anyone who actually thinks the two are equivalently bad or that Trump has any positive attributes that would make him a good president to begin with.


    I don't want the U.S. to function as the world police anymore. Oddly enough, Trump is the slightly better choice here as he's the only one of the two that hasn't led the U.S. to war (because he hasn't had the chance) and he's at least asking the rest of NATO to pay its fair share for once.

    I want an end to the drug war and mass incarceration. Neither helps here... like, at all.

    I want Guantanamo closed, warrantless wiretapping ended and an end to the surveillance state. Neither helps here.

    I want government to stay out of my pocketbook and bedroom. Neither helps here.

    I want to see an end to the PC madness. Trump is better here.

    I want to see a return to civility and rational discourse. Hillary is better here.

    I want politicians to stop being above the law. Neither helps here.

    None of these things are allowed to matter to me, though, because Joss Whedon says so.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    Remember when John Podesta bragged about the kind of dinners he's eating when compared to Julian Assange? Given the latest WikiLeaks about his choice in <ahem> dining companions, now I really wonder what the 'special ingredient' was in that lobster risotto.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Has Comey Overstepped and Put the FBI into a Political Role?
    First, Republicans praised Comey for being a fair and thorough investigator. Then he chose not to recommend charges against Hillary for her crimes. Republicans complained, Democrats chided them for flip flopping on Comey and praised Comey for his professionalism. Now Republicans are happy with him again and Democrats are saying off with his head.

    Given these two seemingly contradictory actions (no charges and now this e-mail thing), it seems like he's a man beholden to no political party.

    You know, I get why they have this policy of not carrying out an investigation in public so close to the election. It's funny though, can you imagine if she was elected and arrested right after the fact and Kaine got 3.90 years in the White House? That guy looks like a weaselly creep, I'm just saying.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Hillary and staff have repeatedly shown contempt for our democractic institutions that is at least on par with Trump's declaration about the legitimacy of the POTUS voting results.
    The only contempt that would be on par with Trump's declaration would be Clinton herself saying she would not accept the result of the election. The inability for a nation to transfer power in a peaceful and orderly fashion is how civil wars get started. But ooh, let's all pretend to be equivalently outraged that Hillary may have been leaked a freaking debate question. Rolleyes


    I don't know why you're responding only to the debate rigging. This is about the debate rigging, yes, but also the conspiracy within leadership of the DNC, the derision of a large portion of the electorate by Hillary & staff and, perhaps most importantly, a willingness to incite violence at political rallies.

    You're right, the peaceful transition of power is incredibly important. But given all the evidence, how can anyone blame Trump for wondering about the validity of the results?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    First Wasserman Shultz, then Brazile and Brazile again. And half of all Trump supports are "deplorables." And Democratic activists are organizing to incite violence at Trump rallies. Hillary and staff have repeatedly shown contempt for our democractic institutions that is at least on par with Trump's declaration about the legitimacy of the POTUS voting results.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Bill C-16, Transgender Rights and Anti-Discrimmination Practice in Canada
    Anyone mind giving the layman's cribnotes on identity? An example, in particular, would be useful. Here it seems to be separated from both (biological) sex and (cultural) expression and so I'm not sure what's left. I do have an example below but that is more mental illness than anything IMO.

    So I could be biologically a male, dress and act in a feminine way and 'identify' as some other thing? What would be my impetus for doing so? Can I wake up one day and just 'identify' as a Lord Admiral and make up some definition of that and then insist that everyone refer to me as a Lord Admiral under penalty of law? By no means am I suggesting that such a silly example represents all or even most of those who have another identity that they hold deeply to, but I suppose that's the question: what is a legitimate identity that needs to be recognized, what's not and how do you determine the difference?

    When I was in my teens, there was this guy that showed up to play MTG with us one night. I'm not sure where he came from or who invited him but this guy was, as far as I could tell, genuinely convinced that he was a Werewolf. I mean genuinely convinced, not joking around or trolling or anything. Being the immature jerks that we were at the time, we really let him have it behind his back. I'm not proud of that because clearly he had a mental illness and probably wasn't responsible for his weird behavior. Again, I recognize that this is a wacky example but I'm curious as to whether this law would have actually required us to acknowledge his Werewolf-ness. It was definitely part of who he thought he was as a being, both physically and culturally/socially.

    Now I'm not sure about, in that above example, what the correct attitude is in dealing with such people. Maybe it's best to just pretend that they are a Werewolf and just go along to get along. But I could also see the point of view of someone who suggested not feeding into his delusions. And, either way, it certainly seems like an area around which there is legitimate room for disagreement and discussion (i.e., not a question for the law.)
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Mothership spoilers 10/26 Ludevic, Kyanios and Tiro and more
    Flavorwise: at first I was thinking K&T represented a step forward as far as putting homosexual relationships on an equal footing with hetero ones. But come to think of it, while I believe there have been hetero relationships depicted, I can't remember one coming in the form of a legendary creature. Pia and Kiran Nalaar for example and Gisa and Geralf are each brother and sister pairs, right? Interesting.

    Anyway, Ludevic doesn't look too good and K&T aren't really competitive but I still think it'd be fun to run them as a commander for those of us not using Zedruu the Greathearted
    already.


    Edit: Nvm. Pia and Kiran were married...
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    While the double standards surrounding violence and the sabotage of the democratic system are certainly more important, let's not forget the way the left-wing power structure uses the media to harp on the mistakes of 3rd party candidates as well, while ignoring items like Hillary's Mosul Moment. You're probably not going to see the Times making a big deal out of that.

    As for the Russians, curious that they are suddenly viewed as a terrifying menace! Ooh.. the Russians, how scary! We could have used your support ~40 years ago when you were employed as useful idiots for the Soviet regime.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.


    As long as we're throwing around straight-up conspiracy theories like the Huma Abedin Muslim Brotherhood lie, you might as well include that Hillary's a lizard person.

    WaPo gives that lie four Pinocchios:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/25/does-huma-abedin-have-ties-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/

    If Clinton is so bad, why do you feel the need to pad your list with outright falsehoods? Or do you not bother to check?


    As long as we're cherry-picking ridiculous things might I point you to all of the Neo-Nazi elements within the Trump campaign such as: support from David Duke that they were unaware of, retweeting an image of Hillary with a Star of David on it (other than it not being a Star of David and Hillary not being Jewish, it was totally anti-semitic) or, say, Laura Ingraham's Heil Hitler salute for der Fuhrer Drumpf?

    We both agree that Trump is a problem. Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Based on your comments the last year Highroller, I don't think you really agree with the argument Glenn Beck is making, except that you probably don't like Hillary much either and view her as someone the government can manage.
    Well, yeah, pretty much. Obviously I don't agree with Glenn Beck's political views. He's still a nutjob. Still, I thought it was at least a fairly reasonable position on his part, which surprised me.

    The point is, Trump is just about as textbook of an example of a person who is not only a terrible candidate for president, but also an outright threat to our system of government, as a person can be. In school, you talk about why the Founding Fathers crafted the government with so many checks and balances and so forth. I imagine a lot of High School history and social studies teachers are answering, "Why'd they put that restriction in there?" not with a hypothetical, but with a finger pointing and the news and going, "Because of that guy."

    Trump is about as obvious of an incorrect answer as can be. If people are STILL backing him, that means they are putting something else above the country, and that means they are putting something over their duty as citizens to this country and their ethical duty as human beings.


    Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Highroller »
    So far, my read is that Trump's camp is composed of four groups:

    1. People who are indeed racist, sexist, xenophobic, and bigoted, who have found in Trump a mainstream candidate willing to reflect their own bigotry and xenophobia.
    2. People who are legitimately news ignorant, OR who actively reject any news that does not fit their biases.
    3. People who are so locked in a partisan mindset that they will vote Republican automatically.
    4. People who specifically hate Hillary Clinton, and who may or may not think she is actually Satan. (No, I'm being serious, Google it.)

    The thing that is important to remember is that these camps definitely have overlap.



    To the jab in #4: yes there are some wacky criticisms of her but then there are some who earnestly compare Trump to Hitler, so whatever. These are the two most reviled candidates in modern POTUS history. This is not just about typical partisan bias. Why was Gary Johnson ahead of her in the independent vote as of a couple weeks ago? If it's true that Johnson is a loon then there's really no excuse for a major party nominee to be trailing among independents.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Why do people pray if God knows everything?
    Intercession confuses me because if intercession has power, it seems counter-intuitive that a just God would act differently due to the results of a popularity contest. So for the sake of example, if you take 2 people who are same in almost every respect but one suffers from social anxiety and the other is quite charismatic, then the latter is going to do better with the Almighty?
    Posted in: Religion
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.


    So the watchdog that the right constantly tries to hamstring didn't act fast enough? Well golly gee gosh, why ever could that be?


    Because they're a government entity and because are a government entity, they rely on force and because they rely on force, they both push out alternatives and conduct themselves in a way that is wildly inefficient? (Like the way the FDA created a monopoly for Mylan on epinephrine injectors)
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Wells Fargo is a perfect example of a market regulating itself for the better... oh wait.... nope, nope, it just proves that markets cheat the system, keep it secret for years and only regulation and government intervention keeps these organizations honest in the long run since individuals don't have recourse.


    To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    I think it's entertaining that the main parties are still grasping at straws and scared as Johnson's popularity goes up and up.
    I think it's entertaining that you think this is what's happening. The Democrats and Republicans are no more scared of Johnson than they're scared of Bigfoot. Both have an approximately equal chance of winning the election.


    Well, I did post an article earlier about Crooked Hillary trying to take some of his votes and with Johnson leading both of them among independents, it does look like a ripe group to target. Nevermind that he's a megalomaniac and she seriously endangered our national security and can't be bothered to apologize for it for longer than 5 seconds, Gary Johnson one time forgot where Aleppo was and that's what's really important?


    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Either that or, you know, you're kinda reaching like a trapeze artist because that's literally not what the question was. You're all getting too desperate now.
    We're desperate because your boy has now choked twice on national television, AND created his own meme on top of it?



    I'll believe that Gary Johnson doesn't know what Aleppo is as soon as we all start believing that Obama thinks there are 57 states. It's absurd.

    And as for the world leaders question, would you again re-read/re-listen to it? Because right now I feel like the only one that actually paid attention to what the question was.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Highroller »
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37506311

    Just... Wow.

    Yeah, would any of the Johnson defenders care to field this one?


    https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/palin-redux-watch-libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-unable-to-name-one-world-leader-he-admires/


    Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson was flummoxed when asked to name one foreign leader he admired during an MSNBC Townhall.


    Which of course leads to:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37506311


    "Gary Johnson wants to be the leader of the free world. Can't name any other leaders in the free world," wrote another Twitter user, Aღanda.


    Either that or, you know, you're kinda reaching like a trapeze artist because that's literally not what the question was. You're all getting too desperate now.






    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    So Charlie Crist just made the mistake of calling Hillary "honest" in a public forum and the crowd predictably burst into laughter. This is what the American people think of your candidate, Democratic party. You can't rely on Donald Trump's deplorability alone to win this election.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Hardly a huge leap to suggest that the man who invoked the name of Allah during the attacks in St. Cloud was motivated by radical Islam.
    And you responded exactly the way I knew you were going to.

    1. At the time of your post, we only had information that one of the attacks was motivated by ISIS, and no information whatsoever on the other two.

    2. Even if we knew they were all motivated by radical jihadists, that is not the same as being motivated by Islam. It's similar to the difference between saying an attack was the result of someone subscribing to Irish nationalist terrorism, versus saying an attack was the result of someone being Irish.


    The St. Cloud attacker cried out "Allah!" while stabbing people and the bomber responsible for the attacks in Manhattan and New Jersey was Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized citizen from Afghanistan and you expect us to believe that radical Islam has nothing to do with these attacks? Come on man, please don't be disingenuous.

    Yet we can't talk about radical Islam. Can't even admit that this has anything to do with Islam at all. Neither can we discuss the U.S.' ridiculous foreign policy that involves bombing whoever and arming whoever else for God only knows what reasons. What's the plan to combat terrorism again? Cross our fingers?

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Mockingbird »

    You're putting the cart before the horse. A good chunk of the reason no one votes for 3rd Party candidates is because of the stigma label "3rd Party."
    Not even remotely the case. The stigms of the label third party comes from the fact that people very rarely vote for them, and people very rarely voting for them comes from their extremist and alienating viewpoints, and many times detachment from reality.

    This has been a demonstrated fact throughout our country. We generally tend to have two dominant parties, with a third party only coming into prominence when the two dominant parties either are not addressing a major issue, or have candidates that are exceedingly unpopular. This is because the two dominant parties tend to be centrist, with the third party occupying an extreme viewpoint and/or based entirely around a single issue.

    Really? Because Trump's platform consists of:

    • Whining about Muslims.
    • Whining about illegals.
    • Whining about Crooked Hillary.
    Sounds like a match to me.
    You forgot whining about civil rights activists.

    Quote from Ljoss »

    We do have that in common - that neither of us would use the 3 terror attacks in the U.S. yesterday as a reason to whine about 'Islamophobia.'
    The fact that you attribute all three to "Islam" maybe might be the problem we're criticizing about you.


    Hardly a huge leap to suggest that the man who invoked the name of Allah during the attacks in St. Cloud was motivated by radical Islam.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Ljoss »
    That's absurd. Why would I vote for him when we disagree on almost every major issue?
    Really? Because Trump's platform consists of:

    • Whining about Muslims.
    • Whining about illegals.
    • Whining about Crooked Hillary.
    Sounds like a match to me.


    We do have that in common - that neither of us would use the 3 terror attacks in the U.S. yesterday as a reason to whine about 'Islamophobia.'

    But we disagree about:

    -The wall
    -Mass deportation
    -War
    -Torture
    -Economic policies (all of them)
    -Taxes
    -Personal freedoms (e.g. the drug war, prostitution, etc.)

    So no, I'm not going to vote for him.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Ljoss »
    10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
    If this language is indicative of how you really think... quit fooling yourself and just vote for Trump.


    That's absurd. Why would I vote for him when we disagree on almost every major issue?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.


    I love that the two great achievements you hold up are that they got on the ballot (requires a few thousand signatures in most states and the wherewithal to file on time), and that they manage to scrape together a tiny minority of the polls (which has not in the past translated to actual votes - at this point in 2012 Johnson was polling at 6%. He got <1% on election day). 10% is terrible. But apparently we have to use kiddie gloves for the libertarians and give them a pat on the back for it. And also give them an invite to the debates, because while 10% is a great achievement, 15% is apparently impossible.


    If getting on the ballot in all states is so easy, why is it that no other third party can do it?

    10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.


    You know how many votes a party that is in touch with American voters earns? 40-50%.


    40% * 3 = 120%. Mathematically impossible.


    As far as libertarian candidates go, Johnson and Weld are not terribly out of touch.


    Exactly.


    But their newfound party is. Johnson got booed at the libertarian debates for saying he thinks driver's licences aren't the worst idea in the world (every other candidate on stage vehemently opposed them), and for saying that he would sign the civil rights act. Johnson might even have a political future - not as president, but maybe in congress - but the mere choice to take up the libertarian mantle is comically out of touch. It's not a serious party, and no serious candidate would run under their banner. Johnson surely knows this - when he wanted to be president in 2012, he first ran as a republican, and only joined the libertarian ticket when it was clear the republicans weren't interested.


    They are indisputably the 3rd largest political party in this country.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Yeah, I get it, we disagree.
    However, you do not understand why we disagree.

    Quote from Tiax »

    There are many such scenarios, but they all start with a third party adopting a platform which is not comically out of touch with Americans.
    Or reality.

    Quote from bLatch »

    The two party lock has never been more obvious,
    The two party "lock" exists because people aren't voting for anyone else, bLatch.


    So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from bLatch »
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/16/gary-johnson-trump-clinton-debates/90507686/

    It's official. he will not be on the stage. According to the polls utilized only 10% of the electorate (average) would vote for him, so he is out of the first debate.

    The two party lock has never been more obvious, and while there have been electoral outcomes I disliked and disagreed with this is the first time since I've been eligible to vote that I am legitimately disappointed by the system itself.

    The former New Mexico governor added that the commission "may scoff at a ticket that enjoys ‘only’ 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states."



    You're disappointed that the guy who has a 0% chance of being president isn't in the debates to figure out who should be president?


    Being one of just 3 candidates that is on the polls in all 50 states + carrying more than 10% of the electorate with very limited media coverage, fundraising and support structures is not insignificant. For a small d democrat, I'm surprised that you'd be so interested in limiting the public's right to know and make an informed decision.

    Also, do you think Donald Trump actually has a legitimate chance of winning?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.


    There are many such scenarios, but they all start with a third party adopting a platform which is not comically out of touch with Americans.


    When you say platform, are you talking about the party's written platform?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    He has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. His VP has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. He's polling at 10%+ nationwide with very limited media coverage. Multiple high profile politicians (including Mitt Romney and ex-governors like Schwarzenegger) have voiced their interest in having him at the debates. The two big party candidates are probably the most reviled duo in modern election history. There are only THREE candidates on all 50 state ballots and guess who the 3rd is?

    If he can't qualify for the debates, who else will ever have that chance in this media climate?
    Someone polling at 15% or above, clearly.


    Unless they move the target up again and why the heck not? They've done it before and they have a vested interest in doing it again.

    That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.


    Why cede control of our election to the big parties and the media?
    I know you think that the Libertarian party is this put upon party and if only people knew about them they'd get more votes.


    That's not unusual for anyone that believes that their conclusions are derived from a proper understanding of reality - whether they be Christians or Atheists, libertarians or socialists. In fact, your repetition of the word "ignorance" hereafter seems to suggest that you too believe that very same thing, only in reverse. If people only had a proper understanding of history, economics, etc. then they wouldn't be libertarians. Yeah, I get that, we disagree.

    In this scenario, though, I think I'm making a much more modest proposal: that, if equally informed, the American people as a whole might dislike Gary Johnson less than they dislike Trump and Hillary. Not than every Democrat or every Republican, but than these two specifically.


    [quote] As though their only problem were lack of exposure. But it isn't. There's one reason people are Libertarians, and that's ignorance. Ignorance of economics. Ignorance of history. Ignorance of law. Ignorance of foreign policy. Ignorance.


    Yeah, I get it, we disagree.

    But you know, we're not exactly talking about radicals here. Yes, I'm sure you could isolate some radical elements within their agenda but Johnson and Weld were both elected as Republicans to the office of governor for 2 different Democratic states. They're not exactly Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner. Heck, they're not even Ron Paul.


    Gary Johnson would make a better president than Donald Trump. But that's about all I can say, and really, that's faint praise.


    Add Hillary to that list and we're good.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Highroller »

    Blinking Spirit with all due respect I think you're wrong. The voters in this election are far more disenfranchised with the available options from the leading 2 parties than they were in the '92 election. The voters want a third option, and Johnson in the debates will show them there is one.
    Everyone knows there are third options. The question is whether or not there are any viable third options, which of course Johnson is not.

    This is reflected in Johnson's inability to qualify for the debates. The qualifying number is 15% support, which Johnson does not have.


    He has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. His VP has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. He's polling at 10%+ nationwide with very limited media coverage. Multiple high profile politicians (including Mitt Romney and ex-governors like Schwarzenegger) have voiced their interest in having him at the debates. The two big party candidates are probably the most reviled duo in modern election history. There are only THREE candidates on all 50 state ballots and guess who the 3rd is?

    If he can't qualify for the debates, who else will ever have that chance in this media climate?

    Why cede control of our election to the big parties and the media?

    The threshold used to be lower than 15%, mind you. Why did it change? Ross Perot?

    Quote from Tiax »

    So the standard for fair questions is "common knowledge"? We can't expect the candidates to know more than the average uninformed American?

    I guarantee you Hillary Clinton knows what Aleppo is.


    I guarantee you that Gary Johnson knew as well. He said he did in his statement after the fact, and the dude spends plenty of time talking about foreign policy/the Syrian refugee crisis. Do you really think he didn't know what Aleppo was just because he had a brain cramp when it was brought up completely out of context as a "gotcha" question? I guarantee you that Barack Obama knew there were only 50 states, too.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on [Primer] UR Dragonaut - Eye Candy - Nivix Blitz
    Quote from alus84 »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Can I ask why no Lava Dart in any of these builds? That's 2 spells and 2 damage for R at instant speed.


    2 spells for 1 mana are really gourgeous, but..
    It eats you mountains, and only mountains, and it kills almost nothing. My main problem is removing big creatures that could kill me fast (I think about Affinity and Gurmag Angler).
    I find it more suitable for a mono red build, or very aggro lists like goblins, where every single damage can make the difference and it has to cost 1 or less.


    Thanks. Would the stuff that you're having trouble with all be answered by Lightning Bolt or is there a need for something like Vapor Snag?

    Posted in: Established
  • 0

    posted a message on [Primer] UR Dragonaut - Eye Candy - Nivix Blitz
    Can I ask why no Lava Dart in any of these builds? That's 2 spells and 2 damage for R at instant speed.
    Posted in: Established
  • 0

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    Tim Kaine once used race to strike white jurors from a trial. Whoops. Interested to see whether this gets classified as 'racist' as Trump's take on the judge did. It actually should be labelled racist according to your logic as Kaine was essentially saying that white jurors are less capable of being fair to his client. I think Tim Kaine was just trying to get his client a more sympathetic jury which, while it was legal, made perfect sense.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from Ljoss »
    When you display symbols, people are going to interpret them. And when they interpret them in completely straightforward ways, that is not 'oppression' or 'Islamophobia.' If you walk around displaying the stars and bars, guess what? Some people are going to assume you are a racist. You're free to define it as 'heritage, not hate' all you want but still at the end of the day, people are going to make reasonable assumptions. Sadly, you really don't have much of a feminist/LGBTQ tradition to fall back on with your hijab.
    The Confederate flag is a political symbol. The hijab is an article of clothing. If the hijab has a sexist history, name one article of women's clothing that doesn't. Unfortunately, women got the short end of the stick pretty much everywhere on the planet. But women still wear clothes, and they tend to choose clothes of their native culture. If a woman straight-up tells you she wants to wear a hijab, there's no "reasonable assumption" to be made beyond that she's telling you the truth and she wants to wear a hijab. Would you doubt the word of a woman wearing a dress? Would you even think to question why she's wearing a dress?


    -Perhaps all other articles of clothing have sexist histories. The hijab, however, has a very sexist present and nothing in the past or present can help exonerate it.

    -I would tend to take her word. But unfortunately this is the type of thing where we have plenty of justification to doubt it.

    -Is the current situation surrounding dresses comparable to this? Are women subject to harsh penalties for refusing to wear dresses?


    Quote from Ljoss »

    Some friends at school were shocked when I told them it was my own decision to wear the headscarf, having assumed that my parents had forced me to do it.


    Which could be because they secretly wish genocide upon all Muslims. Or, you know: BECAUSE. THAT. ACTUALLY. HAPPENS.And some parents force their kids to be in the marching band, but if you assume that any given bandie is only there because their parents forced them to, even when they outright tell you otherwise, then you put the first three letters in "assume".



    I would not compare the sanctions for not joining band to the ones for not wearing religious dress. Neither would any SJW in any non-Muslim circumstance.

    Regardless, there is one important point you might have missed in the article. Her outrage is not about people not believing her, it's about people being surprised when they find out their assumptions were wrong. That's a big distinction.

    Quote from Ljoss »

    Practicing modesty does not mean I am ashamed of my body — I love my body!

    Oddly, that's precisely what it would mean to an SJW if she were an evangelical Christian. Double standards.
    Since your overall project here is attacking the hijab, you seem to be agreeing with your hypothetical (I might even say "straw") SJW with regards to conservative Christian garb. Or else the SJW is wrong about Christian garb and you are just as wrong about the hijab.


    It is true that both have enormously sexist backgrounds though one is immediately much worse than the other. I'm also absolutely fine with a woman (Muslim, Christian, whatever... including this woman) making a decision to interpret these forms of dress as a decision to embrace modesty.

    Quote from Ljoss »
    Opposition to the burkini is misogynistic. The burkini and severe societal pressure to wear it isn't? Getting stripped by the cops is freedom? Being able to wear the clothing of your choice without harassment isn't? Some libertarian you are.


    -She seems to be referring to the statement as opposed to the act itself.

    -Of course I'm against the law from the standpoint that the French government does not have the just authority to enforce it.

    -Of course I'm against the law from the standpoint of human freedom.

    -Aren't laws that enforce religious dress codes in Muslim states a big problem?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Today in SJW land: the Hijab can be 'liberating' and 'feminist.'


    My biggest issue was realizing how much others judged me not based on the content of my character, but on their perceptions of hijabs more generally. For example, plenty of people seem taken aback when I say that I’m a feminist or that I support LGBTQ rights.


    When you display symbols, people are going to interpret them. And when they interpret them in completely straightforward ways, that is not 'oppression' or 'Islamophobia.' If you walk around displaying the stars and bars, guess what? Some people are going to assume you are a racist. You're free to define it as 'heritage, not hate' all you want but still at the end of the day, people are going to make reasonable assumptions. Sadly, you really don't have much of a feminist/LGBTQ tradition to fall back on with your hijab.


    Some friends at school were shocked when I told them it was my own decision to wear the headscarf, having assumed that my parents had forced me to do it.


    Which could be because they secretly wish genocide upon all Muslims. Or, you know: BECAUSE. THAT. ACTUALLY. HAPPENS.


    Practicing modesty does not mean I am ashamed of my body — I love my body!


    Oddly, that's precisely what it would mean to an SJW if she were an evangelical Christian. Double standards.


    a privilege I also acknowledge that some Muslim women have been stripped of.


    Whoops, thought there was no reason at all why a hijab might be interpreted as anti-woman?


    Lately, the hijab has become a prevalent symbol of oppression.


    Because it is... or because several million people are experiencing a collective delusion?


    Just recently, in France, armed police officers forced a Muslim woman to take off her burkini in the name of freedom and secularity, which sparked outrage all over the world. It seems that a woman is only free when her concept of freedom corresponds with the way Western values define it. Following that incident, the French Prime Minister said that "the burkini is a symbol of the enslavement of women" — a starkly Islamophobic, misogynist statement.


    Opposition to the burkini is misogynistic. The burkini and severe societal pressure to wear it isn't?

    I can't even go on. While we're on about MTVs links to the SJW movement, here's a classic: Is PC Culture Anti-Free Speech? in which we learn that the SJW movement is not against the free exchange of ideas as the racist alt right loves to claim. In fact, they're expanding freedom of speech by adding new words to the dictionary. Which is some sort of reverse Orwellian nonsense.

    Quote from Tiax »

    What actual harm do you think has come from this title?


    If I'm having a private conversation with a friend and he uses an ethnic slur referring to Asians, for example, I'm not sure that any "harm" would be coming from that, especially since I'm not Asian. But if the situation permits, I'm still going to take him to task on that because it's not a cool thing to do. In this case, the racial speech was seen by thousands upon thousands of people, not just one. So I don't know what specific 'harm' you're looking for here, but it's wrong to talk like that.


    Or are you just making a mountain out of a molehill so you can say "AHA!! THE SJWS ARE THE REAL RACISTS!!", like you always do?


    I've never said anything remotely resembling that. There are an enormous amount of people that are not SJWs that are racist in a more conventional, more immediately dangerous fashion. That doesn't prevent SJWs from being racist or hateful because simply claiming to oppose racial hatred doesn't mean you do, doing it does.











    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.